Spanking, Smacking etc. of Children

Ethics
41

I read about an interesting method of discipline in a magazine, and I wondered if any the parents here could confirm or deny its efficacy.

The basic idea was to allow a child to experience the full consequences of an incorrect action, rather than punish them and forcing the correct course . An example given was a child that had to be told many times to change for school, which often resulted in shouting matches and threats. So, frustrated by the ineffectualness of this technique, the mother simply took the child to school in his pajamas. He was told, once, that he should be ready to leave at a certain time, and when he was not, he was simply taken to school anyway.

Obviously such a method would not be practical for a child who refused to look both ways before crossing the street, but I wonder at its usefulness in other situations.

I once had exactly this situation with one of my girls when she was about 4 years old. And I tried this technique.

For some reason I don’t remember, it was just me and her one day. I think my wife had to go into work early and the other children had gone with her. This one has always tended to sleep in.

It was all about not liking her socks, which was a common problem with our girls (and still is). She had about 27 kinds of socks to choose from, too. My wife had bought her just about every brand, color, and size. My daughter did not like the socks her mother had chosen for her in advance. (Mom’s are great; I would have had no idea which to choose for her.)

As my daughter stood before me – in nothing but her panties – I calmly explained to her that I would be taking her to school in twenty minutes at exactly 8:00 am. I pointed to the clock. I also explained that I would be taking her to school whether she was dressed or not. She knew that my wife and I always followed through with what we said we would do. There was plenty of time for her to get her clothes on – shorts, t-shirt, socks and shoes. She was familiar with the clock and I showed here where the minute hand would be pointing when time was up. The countdown began.

She continued to whine, fuss, and stall. I explained the situation again and every few minutes gave her another reminder. I repeatedly showed her the movement of the clock’s minute hand and reminded her that we were leaving when it pointed straight up. I told her to go choose different socks if she preferred. I gave her a last reminder at 7:58 am and told her she had better hurry. She whined and fussed some more – still with nothing on but her panties.

Grimly, when the minute hand finally reached the appointed spot, I went over to her as she stood there – still in nothing but in her panties – gathered up her clothes, socks and shoes, picked her up, carried her out to the car, and strapped her into her car seat, which was positioned directly behind my driver’s seat. She screamed bloody murder the whole time. I climbed into the driver’s seat and turned on the ignition. This is when I learned that I thought that she had been screaming bloody murder, but that I had never actually heard screaming bloody murder before. She seemed to be screaming right into my ears. As I drove her to school I wanted to roll down the windows for some noise relief but was afraid I might get arrested for kidnapping. It was that bad, and people have cell phones.

After about 10 minutes of this, she changed to sobbing and then gradually became quiet. She recognized that we were nearing her school. I thought: “This is good, I am making the point.”

Just as I turned onto the side street of the school, something sailed past my head and landed on the dash. It took me a moment to realize what it was: her panties.

I had been quite prepared to take her into school in her panties, but I was not prepared to take her into school stark naked. Now it was my turn to sweat. The ride to school was almost over. She sat quietly in her car seat – naked. I played it cool – but frankly had no idea what my next move should be. I pulled into the parking lot and parked. I reached for the panties from the dash, slowly climbed out of the car, went back, and opened her door. I calmly unlatched her from the car seat. I still had no idea what I was actually going to say or do. It was not until that moment that she finally relented. She yelled “no!” and franticly grabbed her panties from my hand and started to dress.

We didn’t have such an episode again. But it was close. Really, really close. And this one in particular is always ready to up the ante.

42

*** Mod’s note: Merged with a previous topic. - sN ***

Wanted to get the forum member’s thoughts on smacking vs beating. I have at best a mismash of ideas in my head so I’m going to spew them out in this post.

I will start with this definition of parenting:

“The parent’s job is to bring the future into the present for the child, to make it palpable, and to do so in a way that accurately represents the world as it is—but at a level that is accessible to the child.”

I will also define a child as a 9 year old.

Having said that I would suggest that children often want to do playful things, and are not necessarily advanced enough in thought to consider the consequences of their actions. Some of these things might be objectively considered “bad”, but the child mind may not be developed enough to consider them thus. The law also states that their parents/guardians are responsible for their actions. What then happens when some playful fun goes bad, and (to be extreme) someone dies? It’s certainly in the interests of the parent or guardian to limit this behaviour. Sometimes that will require coercion.

That coercion takes the form of smacking. I distinguish between smacking and beating by defining smacking as the minimum coercisive action required to prevent further damage by the child’s own actions .

Given that one can’t foresee every possibility and given that a child’s rationality is bounded to a huge degree in comparison with adults. , when something unexpected arises which might result in hard to the child, should one 1) quickly correct the child using minimum force required to do so, or 2) let the child suffer the injurious consequences? Which of those two situations is the more abusive?

At the same time isn’t this coercisive force at heart an authoritarian force ,one that will sooner or later, cause problems. if you are being a good parent, why did you not anticipate that the child might be curious about e.g. sockets and secure them? Then, seeing the child’s curiousity, why did you not find some safe ways for the child to learn about electricity? How does spanking convey to the child the remotest understanding about electricity and why it can be dangerous?

43

In virtually every situation where you can smack a child, you can also just physically restrain them until they’ve calmed down a lot. Wouldn’t that be the better way to go; seeing as to how it’s much less forceful?

And if they’re too big to restrain, they’re probably old enough to listen to reason. Either way you really don’t need to smack them.

44

I agree, but an absolute prohibition against spanking is fundamentally wrong. Just because the death penalty is the punishment of last resort does not mean that it is never the correct punishment.

Ayn Rand actually once said that the death penalty should not be implemented because of the possibility of executing an innocent person. Not because a criminal has a right to life, but because an innocent person who might be executed and falsely convicted cannot be resurrected once the death penalty has gone into effect if they are later proven innocent. Although I could imagine that in cases involving national security, such issues as a false execution would be paled by the danger in which such a position puts America. Nevertheless that’s a different issue altogether than, say, arson.

Back on topic, smacking children is barbaric! How do they even know that the child is intentionally misbehaving, and not merely suffering from a mental illness? Unless it’s a life or death situation, I would not advocate a parent using any form of smacking as a method. We need prohibitions against direct and harmful uses of force. And yes, smacking IS harmful. If the government can monopolize force, then it is reasonable to extend the prohibition against individual use of force to the case of a parent and a child. While, depending on the amount of damage, the punishment should vary, it should still be there.

This isn’t an issue of government sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong. Government was created for the very REASON of protecting individual rights. While children don’t possess the SAME rights as an adult, they DO possess rights such as the right to life, and by extension a right to be free from violence.

45

I definitely do not agree with any of what AI said, but it does seem to me that beating a child in punishment is immoral. If the justification is that children do not posses the full capabilities of reason and rational thought, then the only thing they can understand is physical punishment, it does not make sense that a person’s lack of full mental capability is the standard for using physical beatings to teach proper behaviour. I mean, what if my father were to become senile in his old age, and say, every time he forgot to take his pills, or tried to do something without permission, I were to take a leather belt and beat the shit out of him. It sounds rediculous when you put it that way, so why would you do it to a child?

46

Seems some here obviously have no children. Having raised three, I can tell you that corporeal punishment is sometimes absolutely necessary. It will not damage their little psyches.

47

Ayn Rand actually once said that the death penalty should not be implemented because of the possibility of executing an innocent person.

Actually she did not say that, or anything like that. When you attribute a position to Rand, you have an obligation to substantiate it. Note too that assuming this principle, the death penalty is conceivable if you can rule out the possibility of executing an innocent person; thus it is not an absolute context-free rule.

How do they even know that the child is intentionally misbehaving, and not merely suffering from a mental illness?

That is fundamentally perverted reasoning, which relieves all persons of moral responsibility for their actions and, more importantly, enables a shirking of responsibility by custodians. All you have to do is lament your inability to see directly into the soul of a person and declare “I can’t see what their real motive is, and for all I know they are mentally ill. I can do nothing!”

Unless it’s a life or death situation, I would not advocate a parent using any form of smacking as a method.

You don’t need to advocate anything. What you need to do is either realize that you have a moral responsibility to guide the cognitive development of your children, or you should refrain from having children if you are unwilling to actually shoulder that burden.

Government was created for the very REASON of protecting individual rights. While children don’t possess the SAME rights as an adult, they DO possess rights such as the right to life, and by extension a right to be free from violence.

First off, morally speaking children do have the rights of man. Second, if in fact a parent does use improper force against a child, the government will punish the parent. You fail to grasp the fact that corporal punishment can be administered properly, and that a spanking or other forms of physical force are distinct from criminal assault.

48

First off, morally speaking children do have the rights of man. Second, if in fact a parent does use improper force against a child, the government will punish the parent. You fail to grasp the fact that corporal punishment can be administered properly, and that a spanking or other forms of physical force are distinct from criminal assault.

Doesn’t criminal assault relate to what is legal and not necessarily what is moral?

As to the question of the morality of physical violence against children, based on my interpretation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy I conclude that it is definitely immoral to strike a child in retaliation for any offense. As-side from the practical problem of avoiding injury, I have some hearing damage do to a miss aimed slap to the face. The short term gain of immediate obedience is outweighed by the long term lesson that violence is a proper way to meet problems. Consider that it is usually impatience and annoyance that are the major factors driving the use of violence in punishment.

There are more effective ways to teach children to be ethical in there behavior that admittedly require patience and perseverance.

49

Do you happen to have children?

50

As to the question of the morality of physical violence against children, based on my interpretation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy I conclude that it is definitely immoral to strike a child in retaliation for any offense.

Based on my interpretation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy I conclude that is is definitely immoral to allow a child to harm itself or others because of a misguided belief that children should never receive physical punishment. So on that front, we have a stalement.

There are more effective ways to teach children to be ethical in there behavior that admittedly require patience and perseverance.

How is this relevant? Who has denied that fact?

51

I was only spanked once as a child, one time, because my father heard me say a curseword and he got angry (he’s a born again christian.) Immediately after my mother came and told him never to lay a hand on me again. Other than that, which I don’t remember very well, I never needed to be spanked.

Will I spank my children? Probably not. I do not believe that children are born with ‘inherent tendencies’ to be ‘demon children’ or misbehave, so if I find myself in a situation where my child is exhibiting spoiled or rotten behavior, I’d assume I’ve not communicated some point or other and fostered some kind of contradiction or gap in my child’s understanding. I’d then work to find out what it is, and try to fix it, if such is possible. In such a situation, where I have accidentally led my child to a situation where he or she misbehaves in a time or place that I cannot stop and explain, my first recourse would be to remove the child and myself from the situation. Failing all of that, I would probably resort to spanking.

Further, if my child is beating on other children, or other people, and continued to do so despite my attempts to convince him of its futility or immorality, I might resort to spanking. I don’t think children beating eachother is a good or acceptable behavior, even if it’s just boys.

EDIT: To clarify, I do not believe my child will develop the extreme behavioral habits which would require me to spank them, is why I said I probably wouldn’t.

52

Do you happen to have children?

Not sure why this observation is important in order to comprehending the ethical implications of the use of violence in discipline. I think this is an attempt to imply that only those with children can “know”, this is false and is a form of argumentum ad verecundiam.

So I shall plead the fifth.

Based on my interpretation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy I conclude that is is definitely immoral to allow a child to harm itself or others because of a misguided belief that children should never receive physical punishment. So on that front, we have a stalement.How is this relevant? Who has denied that fact?

Since we are talking about the morality of post facto punishment with physical violence your argument does not invalidate my interpretation of the morality of the use of violence in the post facto punishment of transgressions.

Aside from the ethical problem with corporal punishment there is significant behavior studies linking spanking with later psychological, behavior and sexual problems later in life.

Sexual problems

Behavior problems

53

Not sure why this observation is important in order to comprehending the ethical implications of the use of violence in discipline. I think this is an attempt to imply that only those with children can “know”, this is false and is a form of argumentum ad verecundiam.

So I shall plead the fifth.

You don’t necessarily have to have biological offspring to know about how one should raise children, but you do need to know about raising and disciplining children.

The argument from authority refers to statements being taken as correct, without proof, just because someone in authority said them. For instance, if I were to say “I have children, and I’m telling you spanking is A, B and C, and me being a parent is all the arguments you should need”, that would be an argument from authority.

But it has nothing to do with requiring evidence of some kind of knowledge of a subject, if you are to be taken seriously when speaking on it, which is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Dismissing someone who has no knowledge on a subject is not argument from authority, far from it.

If you refuse to answer that, that’s a sign of an attempt at deception: you’re trying to hide how much you know about the subject. We need to know if you ever tried raising or educating children, to make up our minds on whether we take you seriously or not.

You can’t have a valid opinion on applying Objectivism to a situation you’re not at all familiar with, just because you’re familiar with Objectivist ethics. It is important to know things about children, before you can decide what the best course of action is in raising them, and no amount of moral principles is going to replace the need for that knowledge of the situation the principles are being applied to.

54

Seems some here obviously have no children. Having raised three, I can tell you that corporeal punishment is sometimes absolutely necessary. It will not damage their little psyches.

Rational Jenn, a well known Objectivist parent-blogger, practices “positive discipline” - with seemingly great results.

55

Since we are talking about the morality of post facto punishment with physical violence your argument does not invalidate my interpretation of the morality of the use of violence in the post facto punishment of transgressions.

Stick with the cards that you dealt yourself. You claim that corporal punishment is absolutely contrary to Objectivism, I say you’re wrong. So justify your claim about morality.

56

Stick with the cards that you dealt yourself. You claim that corporal punishment is absolutely contrary to Objectivism, I say you’re wrong. So justify your claim about morality.

Corporal punishment for the sake of controlling behavior is antithetical to the very core of Objectivism, since it represents a repudiation of reason and a resort to to the tactics of a brute. i also find the idea that children cannot reason to be a poor rationalization for is it not the ability to reason that is being counted on to make this punishment effective ? the child reasons, this hurts, I do not enjoy pain, therefore I will not do what the person causing the pain is present?

Also, sense we as parents have the objective of producing reasonable and objective adults, we cannot hope to accomplished this with out being at all times agents of reason.

57

We can be as rational as we can possibly be with our children, but keep in mind that when they interact with their peers, that influence has a huge negative effect on what we have taught them. Children are not entirely rational little bienings, and will often exibit behavior that goes against everything you have taught them. Corporeal punishment is a tool that can effectively cut through the bullshit to the heart of the matter.

As my Granny said: “First, you have to get their attention.” :wink:

58

Even with children, the only time I find it acceptable to strike a person is after I’ve been struck. I would never raise a hand to my child when I am trying to get him to do something. However if he make it a physical matter I wouldnt waste a second in slapping him into next week.

59

Corporal punishment for the sake of controlling behavior is antithetical to the very core of Objectivism, since it represents a repudiation of reason and a resort to to the tactics of a brute.

Can you then explain why Rand clearly advocated the rule of law, whereby the government would rightly use force in retaliation against criminals and implicitly threaten would-be criminals with retaliatory force. If you believe that Objectivism adheres to some kind of pacifism, that Objectivism slavishly clings to non-violence as its philosophical primary, you are entirely mistaken about the nature of Objectivism.

i also find the idea that children cannot reason to be a poor rationalization for is it not the ability to reason that is being counted on to make this punishment effective ? the child reasons, this hurts, I do not enjoy pain, therefore I will not do what the person causing the pain is present?

Stay on topic. Can you show me any evidence that anyone here has claimed that children cannot reason? Can you show me anyone here who even suggests that one should always beat children to get them to behave correctly? No, you cannot.

60

Children are not entirely rational little bienings, and will often exibit behavior that goes against everything you have taught them.

Neither are most adults, and if you only want your kids to do what you told them to do, you’re not going to help them become rational, either.

I grew up helping raise other kids (my brothers and numerous others that I baby-sat), and I’ve never encountered a situation where it was *necessary* to hit *any* of them. Rebellious behavior generally arises because adults have *no respect* for the reality of a child’s values or for their hierarchy of values. That and a refusal to help the child *find* a solution.

Taking a child to school naked is *not* allowing that child to see the consequences of their actions. Not taking them to school because they haven’t gotten dressed, is. The more I read and hear about Positive Discipline, the better I like it. If I ever have children (yeah, right, like that’s going to happen), that’s the method I’ll use. I also wouldn’t enroll any children of mine in the Official State Holding Pen or any of the quasi-private Holding Pens, either.