Physical punishment

Post Reply New Topic

I completely agree. There is nothing wrong with using a little bribery (enticement, reward, whatever you want to call it) to encourage the child to focus on doing the thing the way you want it to be done. There is nothing wrong with considered negative consequences (like timeouts and grounding) to discourage harmful actions, either.

But you don't come at it from a behaviorist stance. The behaviorists not only reject communicated information about inner states, they reject neurological analysis. They don't want to take the activity of the brain into account any more than they do the mind of the subject--they are only interested in "behavior." You are doing the hard work of explaining your reasons--and that is the important work of moral instruction.

OK, let me see if I understand: Is behavioralism meant to be one tool in the tool box or is meant to be the only tool and anything else is inefficient, irrelevant or something else? Or maybe I am missing the point, again?

Adamantium - I think your points are well taken. Behaviorism in a classical sense did reject emotion and cognition as being unmeasurable and therefore irrelevant. I think many modern perspectives (including mine) are more or less in line with your critique. Traditional behaviorist principles still apply, and so deserve a place in discourse, especially on topics related to punishment and reward.

I presented a pragmatic argument for why physical punishment is not optimal from a behaviorist perspective. That doesn't mean that I don't share a concern for people's emotions. For me, the emotional harm component of physical punishment is fairly obvious and can be argued by others. At an early point in my career, I was told to use an overcorrection proceedure with a child (a form of non-physical punishment that often left the child crying). It felt wrong but I forced myself to continue with the treatment plan. Later, as I continued to learn about the topic; I could put my finger on why it was wrong. My perspective is that between the lack of efficacy and the potential for physical and emotional harm, there is no good reason to use excessive or physical punishment.

Well, EmileMulder, I really did not think you were a hard core Skinnerian!

I am in agreement with your general critique of physical punishment, and I can see that there is a place for elements from the behaviorist toolkit, but I get very uncomfortable with parts of the analysis that have too much of the traditional "inputs & outputs" approach.

My argument against physical punishment is that it teaches one twisted ethical principle: the person who can inflict the most pain wins the right to dominate others. At best it could be seen as amoral. But really, it's a dark and distorting dynamic. Using someone's sensitivity to pain against them in that way is inviting a personal test of the idea that power corrupts, often in surprising ways.

I think everyone, including parents, who wants to inflict pain on people, including their own children, 'for their own good' should be forced to study Milgram's pain experiment and Zimbardo's prison experiment in some depth.

Reward and punishment have played their parts as the Scylla and Charybdis of coercion through all recorded history and are not the exclusive domain of the behaviorists.

It seems to me that such crude coercion, along with physical restraint, may be needed when children are too young to conceptually model and ethically evaluate the situation they are in, but once the individual has achieved that ability, to the extent that they can, they must be taught to exercise ethical judgment on their own and this cannot meaningfully emerge from a system of rewards and punishments alone.

As one tool in the box, it's OK--as long as you remember that it's a sharp tool with a cutting edge, and it should not be used when people are impaired or exhausted. If you will forgive my extending that metaphor.

What you wrote about is exactly the reason why we have laws, same goes for having rules too. If no law existed, people would be doing it like Jack would with kids.

The reason why those people looted in New Orleans is because there were no police officers, they couldn't do anything so people looted because there would be no consequences. This just shows how chaotic things would be if there was no police. It also shows people follow the laws for the sake to avoid getting arrested and going to jail and facing charges. It's one thing to loot necessities, it's called survival. But those people down there were looting things like jewelry and electronics. It's like even on the last day of school, kids get really rowdy and out of control on school buses after school is out because there is no consequences. School is over for the summer so what is the school going to do or the bus driver? Also if there were no moderators here, there would always be attacks and more drama with personal attacks because there would be no consequence. It would be interesting to see the percentage of people in America about how many of them follow the laws for the sake of avoiding consequences and others following it because it's moral.

Why didn't people in Japan start looting, I can't answer that but can only guess maybe the police were still there and had authority still or people are more moral there compared to Americans.

If kids are following the rules to avoid a consequence, it's teaching them there are consequences if you break a rule. That is how it works in the real world too at work and with the laws. Break a law, you have to pay a fine or go to jail depending on how bad the crime is.

There are laws out there you can easily get away with when you don't follow them like for example, Washington state does not allow tax evasion so it's illegal to go into Oregon to shop to avoid sales tax. I would be breaking this law if I lived close to Portland in Washington, my parents did this all the time when I was a kid. It's different to drive into Portland to shop at a store Vancouver doesn't have or to go to Saturday Market and buy something there, that isn't the same as evading sales taxes. How are they going to know a parent is shopping in Portland for school for her kids to avoid sales tax? That is what I mean by how easy it is to break this law and get away with it because how are they going to know? So of course I would break this law and not follow it.

Also even though there is a law against discrimination, it still happens in work places. There are loop holes and you also have to prove you were fired or not hired for a discriminative reason. Also how are you going to know you weren't called for an interview because of your disability or your pregnancy or because you're a woman? How are you going to know you weren't hired for these reasons too? That is why it's easy to get away with this.

Schools and workplaces will try and get away with breaking the law like the school may try and get away with not following the kid's IEP despite the law about it, they are just hoping the parents are ignorant to their rights and what the laws are. Workplaces will still try and get away with things hoping you're ignorant about the law and if they know you wouldn't file a lawsuit and take them to court for wrongful termination, they will do it anyway knowing you won't do that to them because they know they can get away with it.

Also kids do try and get away with things so they may do something wrong thinking they won't get caught, this is normal kid behavior. But parents always have ways of finding out and the kid gets punished for it and the kid learns to follow the rules because they know their parents have some "super power" to know without them seeing it. Sometimes they do get away with it because they wait until they are at school or when their parent isn't around to do it. This is what kids do and if the parent always believes their kid, the kid gets away with it more because they know their parents will believe them over other parents. Do you remember seeing kids doing this stuff when you were one?

I think what would still hold Jack back if there was no law against having sex with children is the fact he wouldn't want to be chased out of town and be attacked by angry mobs and the fact it's socially unacceptable to have sex with a child and people frown upon it and will bully them deeply and destroy their yard and house and car if people knew what they did. I am sure you know what happens to someone if they hurt a child. Look at what happens to released sex offenders. They tend to get chased from their homes and out of their neighborhood. This is a consequence to hurting a child.

Adamantium- There was a part of my original post that I think comes across as cold and clinical. It's a subtle point that I don't usually trot out to parents, and I understand the reaction. For me it's an important point because the strongest argument that punishment has going for it is that under the right circumstances, it can work. I was just trying to show that even though it can technically work, it is very easy to make a mistake, so that it doesn't.

For me, without that point, the punishment debate seems like an argument between pragmatism and idealism. Instead, I believe that an anti-physical punishment position has both pragmatism and idealism on its side.

ASDMommy- earlier you were trying to unravel my punishment argument as if it were a prescription for how to make punishment work. My intent was just to show how hard it is to get it to work. It is much simpler to focus on teaching replacement behaviors that are more effective and efficient. So rather than spanking a child for stealing cookies, focus on teaching them to ask, and then make sure that asking has a better chance of success than stealing.

A punishment should be linked to the cause, or else it is no punishment. If you dont care for driving carefully with the bicycle, which is simply a core task, for driving a bicycle, then you are not ready yet for owning a bicycle. And because of that the bicycle will be taken away again, until the person proves, that she is fit now for driving a bicycle. Its linked and the task is easy understandable: "Show to be caring for the bicycle driving rules, or as an consequence you will not be given an bicycle." While beating tells nothing. Show to care for the bicylce rules, because otherwise I will be forced to be an stupid maniac and beat you without sense. O_o Exactly what shall you learn from that, beside that your parent is stupid?

So what has physical abuse, to do with punishing someone? You are simply forcing your will on someone, and the only thing you are proofing by that is that you are actually physical stronger and mentally not able to do an discussion with a kid. Better pray, that your kid "learns" nothing from you, because 50 years later when it will be the physical stronger one, and be forced to care for you, that will sure lead to having a good time for both. -.-

I tore my kids butts up when they were young and they needed it. Now, as adults, they suffer from the mental illness called "respect for others.They do not hate me. They harbor no problem with the fact that I tore their butts up. And the boys also know that as grown me their daddy will kick their ass if need be.

If everybody around here could grow up, it would be really nice.

League_Girl

What would happen if law and government broke down in the USA? Based upon what you say law is what maintains order. How I see it is ,this is our Achilles heel. If you could get away with breaking a law and you knew you could would you still break this law or would you feel that following the law was the moral thing to do despite what lack of consequences there are?

I'm going to complicate this up even further. What if the law, rule or the way things are were immoral onto themselves? Would it ever be justified to break this rule, law or anything else like during the time of the civil rights movement? Do we just follow rules for fear of consequences, because it is morally right to follow rules or the rules help to promote a sense of justice and virtue? What if a law or rule detracts from promoting a sense of virtue and justice?

Example, the members of ASpartners has a rule that no aspies are not allowed to post at all. Are there cases in which one should break this rule. Let's say they're putting out misinformation that could lead to our detriment and it especially harms children in the future or if it could lead to a possible form of genocide?("The Social Cost of Aspergers", qplan) In addition, what if certain cultural values and beliefs that made society great are now harming society as a whole because they're taken to an extreme? Is it ever noble and virtuous to break social codes to help a given society to become more noble and virtuous?

I would never molest a child because I think it is absolutely wrong to do so. It is absolutely wrong because it harms them both physically and emotionally. Adults who were molested as children have emotional problems. This is truth and this is fact. Nambla promotes pedophilia and child molestation. Let's say Billy wanted these guys gone and hacked their website to destroy all of their information which would show other pedophiles how to stalk kids and be around them legally? Was this morally correct to do on Billy's part especially if the legal system's hands are tied? Did Billy display virtue in this case?

To me, it is not so simple and there are a lot of complexities involved.

OliveOilMom

Do they have "respect for others" because of the fearing of consequences or do they have "respect for others" because it is the moral and virtuous thing to do meaning do they do this because it is the right thing to do? What is the underlying motivator for your kids "respect for others"? What would happen if this consequence was gone and it was possible they could get away with it?

I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions.
And, of course, there are times when it doesn't work. We see this fairly regularly in cultures with strong traditions of corporal punishment and family honor and the results are tragic. An example that sticks in my mind:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/28/us/te ... -tape.html

Is this kind of extreme example an irrelevant outlier? I don't think so.

It is the inevitable, logical result of fully embracing the doctrine of beating children into "correct" behavior, and in cultures that strongly believe in the benefits of using pain to coerce desired behavior, it happens more often than one would like to imagine possible, as Google can uncover.

I do not spank. I just wanted to make that clear. I agree with you about replacement behaviors. That can be a hard thing. I have the time now b/c my son is at home. While he was in school in was awful b/c they attempted to punish behaviors (shrieking when upset) that they had no replacement for that he would accept. So, naturally he moved to worse behaviors. Finding replacement behaviors that the child will accept as a replacement, that serves the same need, is tough, and they just do not have the time to deal with it elsewhere.

Seriously? You're comparing stabbing a child to a spanking? That's not even a consequence or a discipline method they did, what they did was murder. So they killed her because she defied their authority and they had all these rules for their children and their teen daughter didn't agree with them so she went against them.

Also a spanking isn't beating a child. You are not even hurting them or giving them any welts or bruises when you spank them or giving them any broken bones or making them bleed. I think lot of people don't even know what a spanking is. They just think what they see in the media when parents beat their kids and think that is a spanking or think parents hit their kids out of anger and slap them around every time they piss them off. Are there parents out that that do literally beat their kids? Of course and even parents who have spanked will also say the same and also say that is abuse and wrong to do. Are there parents that do hit their kids out of anger and slap them around? Of course and even parents who have also spanked will also say the same and how wrong it is, especially if they have slap their kid's mouth for saying a naughty word or being mouthy with them.

In certain cultures, disobedience toward your parents is a mortal sin. A child who refuses parental correction should be beaten. If they continue to resist, they should be beaten viciously. If they continue in their obstinacy, they should be killed. I didn't make this up.

And yes, there is a continuum of violence against children with slaps and pinches at one end, going up through punches, kicks, whippings, cannings, beating with clubs, bats, rods and lumber, rib-cracking blows, kidney rupturing blows, brain-hemorrhaging blows, spine-injuring blows. I see a relationship between these approaches to children.

I was not beaten as a child and I don't see any reason to do it to my children. I find the explanations of parents who do it and have fond memories of being beaten by their parents unconvincing. "My kids would be monsters if I didn't beat them," is a typical argument. I guess we'll never know, because we cannot experience that alternate reality in which those children were never beaten. My family story convinces me that violence against children is not a necessary part of good parenting.

But anecdote is not evidence, so perhaps it's better to look at studies...
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ ... nking.aspx
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-ou ... 4-127.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/fami ... e_rod.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2538456/
http://www.cacap-acpea.org/uploads/docu ... shment.pdf

"Spare the rod, spoil the child," is an argument from the same culture that results in honor killings and the general peace, love and understanding that envelops the MIddle East. I don't really want any of that to be involved in the way I teach my children about ethical behavior and how to be a good person in the world. This does not mean I don't believe in discipline. I just don't believe that beating people into submission is an effective pedagogical strategy and it makes the parent a lousy role model.

My apologies if these views seem to cast a negative light on your family's practices. I'm just following the ethical teachings and examples set by my parents and also looking at the science.

That is not what spankers do to their kids. That is just abuse you described. I haven't met any parent who said kids should receive this "treatment" or find it even okay when they would read it in the media or hear about it. I was never beaten either as a child and also see no reason to do it to my own. I sometimes get thoughts about it when I get frustrated and mad but I never do it.

I dont know why, but around here, many people have as well that illness. And thats while we are living in an country, where physical punishment is a crime, and your kids will be taken from you, if you insist on commiting crimes on them.

So that illness you are speaking of, seems not to be linked to physical abuse of kids.