Should you spank kids?

[Ren]

That's a giant leap. Not all kids are born with the same temperament, you wouldn't know what it is like to raise any individual child yourself unless you're in the shoes of that parent.

What @Tin Man is saying is that physically hitting a child is by nature morally condemnable. And there are very good grounds for it: the fact that a child can't defend itself; the fact that it is extremely fragile, both physically and psychologically; the fact that there is no good evidence to show that spanking is useful in any way. On both deontic and utilitarian grounds, there is no justification whatever for spanking. At best, there will be no damage to the child, and that is it; at worst, there will be damage.

The only way in which you can defend spanking is by saying it's useful in certain cases. And from your above quote, what you are implying is that it is useful if the child has a difficult "temperament". This is what you are saying, right? Physically hitting a child is morally acceptable if the child has a "difficult" temperament?

you wouldn't know what it is like to raise any individual child yourself unless you're in the shoes of that parent.

I'm sorry your parents abused you. You're projecting your experience and applying it across the board blindly, however. Your disgust is your own subjective reaction because of your circumstances and it is understandable, but that's basically all it is.

Can you please stop using these absurd ad hominems? It's the third time you do it, after doing it to @Lady Jolanda. These are fallacies and they only weaken your position, on top of making you rather unpleasant to debate with. I do not want you to make pseudo-guesses as regards my psychological disposition. Focus on making your posts more logically sound.

 

[polybius]

What @Tin Man is saying is that physically hitting a child is by nature morally condemnable. And there are very good grounds for it: the fact that a child can't defend itself; the fact that it is extremely fragile, both physically and psychologically; the fact that there is no good evidence to show that spanking is useful in any way. On both deontic and utilitarian grounds, there is no justification whatever for spanking. At best, there will be no damage to the child, and that is it; at worst, there will be damage.

The only way in which you can defend spanking is by saying it's useful in certain cases. And from your above quote, what you are implying is that it is useful if the child has a difficult "temperament". This is what you are saying, right? Physically hitting a child is morally acceptable if the child has a "difficult" temperament?





Can you please stop using these absurd ad hominems? It's the third time you do it, after doing it to @Lady Jolanda. These are fallacies and they only weaken your position, on top of making you rather unpleasant to debate with. I do not want you to make pseudo-guesses as regards my psychological disposition. Focus on making your posts more logically sound.

"I was abused and I have scars so no one should ever lay a finger on a child" Is hardly an argument. I didn't dismiss any actual argument you made with an ad hominem attack since you didn't actually make one, you just projected your childhood into the discussion.

There is no concrete evidence to support correct discipline using corporal punishment is detrimental, which is all I defend, not hitting, not fighting, not giving scars, etc. Most of the people saying they'd judge a parent using any corporal punishment are usually recipients of abuse as you were. So when I bring in your clear bias into this discussion, it's not an ad hominem attack.

And yes spanking is useful in certain cases, it shouldn't be the default, no one here was arguing that it should be. But it does have a place in some cases, and although I personally would choose to avoid it with my kid(s), I wouldn't rule it out. I would rule out anything that might cause scars though, I don't see a place for that severe of a punishment. However, I won't sit on some moral high ground about it and start suggesting 75% of parents worldwide aren't fit to have a child. If they aren't fit to have a child, spanking is hardly the reason for it.

Also, hitting a child is morally condemnable. However, you forget to account for the circumstance and way it is done. There ARE parent-child parameters that make this more nuanced than you're willing to see. It's not a black and white open and shut case that can easily be resolved with a simple "it's bad, don't hit kids ever".

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I think it's on its way out, to be perfectly honest; since there are viable and effective alternatives to smacking (removal of privileges, 'naughty step', &c.), I don't see how any parent would want to do it.

It's funny, but exactly these discussions were had when it was culturally acceptable for husbands to beat their wives. It was expected and sometimes 'necessary', and yet there were laws in place and cultural stigmas attached to make sure that the husbands didn't go overboard.

Of course you must discipline your wife, but do not leave a mark.

I'm talking about Early Modern Europe here, mostly; that's what we have sources for.

 

[Infjente]

I agree with you and don't see how the point you make could even be called into question.

I should add I'm probably emotionally non-neutral here though, as I was the victim of a pattern of repeated corporal punishment as a child, leaving psychological scars that take an extremely long time to heal.

I feel nothing but disgust towards those who use force against their children regardless of the circumstances.

You do not use physical force against a highly fragile being who can't defend itself.

Even though I wasn't spanked as a child, I'm not emotionally neutral to this subject, either. When I see potentially harmful parenting I get very upsett. I have on two occasions stopped a mother and a father from physically and verbally crossing the line (my line) with their child in public. Let me tell you that I'm _not_ comfortable with a confrontation like that! I'll be knocked out for days after.

I have also been very strict in my opinion that there should be zero tolerance for physical punishment, and even positive punishment of children, when I started to learn about behaviourism 15 years ago. And I have probably campaigned this to a ridiculous degree if you asked witnesses.

But what I've seen over the years is that ensuring good mental health isn't about optimizing children's up bringing by removing harmful factors and adding only good ones, it's about establishing a balance between exposure and protection so that the child are able to develop general resistance resources to handle life as an adult. What the child needs to be exposed to has very much to do with culture. If you grow up in a violent society, and you have no experience with handling the emotions related to violence, chances are you won't cope very well in violent situations. If you grow up in a psychologically violent environment, you need to be exposed to psychological pain to be able to protect yourself from and overcome psychological attacks as an adult. It's the same principal as with the physical immune system. If people aren't exposed to certain diseases when they're little, they'll have a big problem later in life. The psychological immune system is no different. Unfortunately, as with physical illness, the psychological immun system isn't always able to fight off all attacks, and leaves permanent damage.

Spanking might be unacceptable, but taboos needs to be twisted and turned in an open discussion to understand them better.

Edit: spanking a child to prepare him for life is not what I mean!

 

[Ren]

"I was abused and I have scars so no one should ever lay a finger on a child" Is hardly an argument. I didn't dismiss any actual argument you made with an ad hominem attack since you didn't actually make one, you just projected your childhood into the discussion.

There is no concrete evidence to support correct discipline using corporal punishment is detrimental, which is all I defend, not hitting, not fighting, not giving scars, etc. Most of the people saying they'd judge a parent using any corporal punishment are usually recipients of abuse as you were. So when I bring in your clear bias into this discussion, it's not an ad hominem attack.

That is not what I said, nor how I said it. I decided to opt for full transparency regarding where I was coming from, and instead you're using that in order to suggest that it was the base of my argument. This is, I should say, rather dishonest. I know you are doing it on purpose, because you do not have much else to say in support of spanking. Anyway, I have since developed my argument here, and you will see that it does not in any way appeal to emotion:

What @Tin Man is saying is that physically hitting a child is by nature morally condemnable. And there are very good grounds for it: the fact that a child can't defend itself; the fact that it is extremely fragile, both physically and psychologically; the fact that there is no good evidence to show that spanking is useful in any way. On both deontic and utilitarian grounds, there is no justification whatever for spanking. At best, there will be no damage to the child, and that is it; at worst, there will be damage.

Now, in terms of what you actually attempted to answer from a substantial point of view:

And yes spanking is useful in certain cases, it shouldn't be the default, no one here was arguing that it should be. But it does have a place in some cases, and although I personally would choose to avoid it with my kid(s), I wouldn't rule it out. I would rule out anything that might cause scars though, I don't see a place for that severe of a punishment.

This is extremely weak. Where is the documentary evidence and how does it beat the evidence of the contrary? On top of your ad hominems, you have been resorting rather extensively to another fallacy, the argument from ignorance. This may have been unconscious; in such a case, looking up the definition might prove beneficial for future debates.

I won't sit on some moral high ground about it and start suggesting 75% of parents worldwide aren't fit to have a child. If they aren't fit to have a child, spanking is hardly the reason for it.

You commit two more informal fallacies here. The first is your "I won't sit on some moral high ground" nonsense. This adds nothing whatsoever to the substance of the discussion and insidiously suggests that those who argue against spanking "sit on some moral high ground". The second fallacy you commit in this short paragraph has to do with this: "If they aren't fit to have a child, spanking is hardly the reason for it." I'm honestly a little embarassed by the vulgarity of this false premise. The discussion here is not about whether parents are fit to have children. The conclusion you reach is what you'd like it to be, but it is actually rendered completely meaningless by your false premise.

I'm sorry to say, but this is too many fallacies for me to handle. Continuing to speak with you under these circumstances would only be frustrating, as you do not seem to be able to reason your way soundly. I believe that I have made my point, and shall be content with that.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

That is not what I said, nor how I said it. I decided to opt for full transparency regarding where I was coming from, and instead you're using that in order to suggest that it was the base of my argument. This is, I should say, rather dishonest. I know you are doing it on purpose, because you do not have much else to say in support of spanking. Anyway, I have since developed my argument here, and you will see that it does not in any way appeal to emotion:



Now, in terms of what you actually attempted to answer from a substantial point of view:



This is extremely weak. Where is the documentary evidence and how does it beat the evidence of the contrary? On top of your ad hominems, you have been resorting rather extensively to another fallacy, the argument from ignorance. This may have been unconscious; in such a case, looking up the definition might prove beneficial for future debates.



You commit two more informal fallacies here. The first is your "I won't sit on some moral high ground" nonsense. This adds nothing whatsoever to the substance of the discussion and insidiously suggests that those who argue against spanking "sit on some moral high ground". The second fallacy you commit in this short paragraph has to do with this: "If they aren't fit to have a child, spanking is hardly the reason for it." I'm honestly a little embarassed by the vulgarity of this false premise. The discussion here is not about whether parents are fit to have children. The conclusion you reach is what you'd like it to be, but it is actually rendered completely meaningless by your false premise.

I'm sorry to say, but this is too many fallacies for me to handle. Continuing to speak with you under these circumstances would only be frustrating, as you do not seem to be able to reason your way soundly. I believe that I have made my point, and shall be content with that.

I have to agree with @Ren here. While in some ways we are having a casual discussion to allow for differing opinions, once you start to make attacks, you rather unfortunately open yourself to actual critique, and @Ren is right - your argument is full of logical fallacies and entirely without empirical basis.

You are content to try to critically dismantle published, peer reviewed research, and yet do not present alternative empirical evidence yourself.

I point again to Theodore Adorno's work on thus - it is a huge monograph (about 800pp if I remember correctly) - and while I disagree with some of his team's methodology, it established the correlation beyond doubt.

Adorno et al found that Fascism and Anti-Semitism were correlated with disciplinarian and violent upbringings. Their sample sizes were large, diverse and extensive. Adorno concluded that this was practically the only common factor (from a psychological point of view) linking people with these opinions.

Adorno therefore concluded that violent chastisement of children was at least partially responsible for the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and the horrors of the Holocaust. If this is the kind of thing you want to gamble for the sake of a cheap tool in the parenting toolbox, then you have no sense of risk.

P.s. I refer to T. Adorno et al, The Authoritarian Personality (1950)

 

[Wyote]

Adorno et al found that Fascism and Anti-Semitism were correlated with disciplinarian and violent upbringings.

Oh good. Turns out I'm not actually a Nazi. That's a relief!

 

[polybius]

I have to agree with @Ren here. While in some ways we are having a casual discussion to allow for differing opinions, once you start to make attacks, you rather unfortunately open yourself to actual critique, and @Ren is right - your argument is full of logical fallacies and entirely without empirical basis.

You are content to try to critically dismantle published, peer reviewed research, and yet do not present alternative empirical evidence yourself.

I point again to Theodore Adorno's work on thus - it is a huge monograph (about 800pp if I remember correctly) - and while I disagree with some of his team's methodology, it established the correlation beyond doubt.

Adorno et al found that Fascism and Anti-Semitism were correlated with disciplinarian and violent upbringings. Their sample sizes were large, diverse and extensive. Adorno concluded that this was practically the only common factor (from a psychological point of view) linking people with these opinions.

Adorno therefore concluded that violent chastisement of children was at least partially responsible for the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and the horrors of the Holocaust. If this is the kind of thing you want to gamble for the sake of a cheap tool in the parenting toolbox, then you have no sense of risk.

P.s. I refer to T. Adorno et al, The Authoritarian Personality (1950)

There is enough review of the studies that show the studies so far are flawed, I linked to it earlier.

I was never arguing for or against spanking, I see that I am letting myself get corralled into it. What I defend is the right for parents to not be covered in a blanket statement as child abusers if they employ corporal punishment without knowing how they do it. All I've seen here is it being reduced to hitting. It's not that simple of a matter, and certainly not enough to accuse parents of abuse. Technically, we can use this to remove a child from the parents' care, regardless of the severity of the punishment. And that's a dangerous road to go down in my opinion. I was spanked at least once a week at a certain unruly point in my life, and I don't recall my childhood as a violent one, and I find some people would look at that and assume my dad is a violent man not fit to raise a child, and that's the issue I have with this discussion, and yes I could say I am biased myself in regards to this because of the respect I have for my parents, who obviously used corporal punishment. In-as-much as I pointed out potential bias coming from the other side, I'll concede I am biased from the angle of people lumping in all of it as child abuse and the implications this would have on parents who are not child abusers.

I tend to think on a larger scale and I see this as another way to take what seems good, like fighting for the rights of children, and going so far with it that it actually becomes an attack on the family. This is just my opinion and I'm okay admitting that at this time.

 

[Wyote]

Oh good. Turns out I'm not actually a Nazi. That's a relief!

@Deleted member 16771 And before you get all technical, yes I understand the flaw in my train of thought here. Just being funny.

 

[Wyote]

There is enough review of the studies that show the studies so far are flawed, I linked to it earlier.

Every study ever

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Oh good. Turns out I'm not actually a Nazi. That's a relief!

He made some conclusions I disagree with, by the way, including what I've should call a 'temporal' or 'nomothetic fallacy' - extending the applicability of particular empirical evidence beyond its reasonable bounds, or claiming that a phenomenon is more universal than it is.

For example, following their research findings, he said that anti-Semitic views were overwhelmingly associated with a right wing political stance, and suggested some causal basis for this (it's the same personality type which tends towards both).

This might seem intuitively true, but it is in fact a historical construct that we have taken for granted. For instance, you only have to go back to the end of the 19th century in France to find a time when antisemitism was firmly a left wing thing (because 'international Jewry' were thought an integral part of the capitalistic mode of production).

 

[Deleted member 16771]

@Deleted member 16771 And before you get all technical, yes I understand the flaw in my train of thought here. Just being funny.

Too late!

 

[Wyote]

but it is on fact a historical construct that we have taken for granted

Nobody understands historical constructs anyway. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Don't make me get all Eternal Return on your ass.

 

[kinglear]

Adorno et al found that Fascism and Anti-Semitism were correlated with disciplinarian and violent upbringings. Their sample sizes were large, diverse and extensive. Adorno concluded that this was practically the only common factor (from a psychological point of view) linking people with these opinions.

Adorno therefore concluded that violent chastisement of children was at least partially responsible for the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and the horrors of the Holocaust.

Hi i've been lurking and find this idea fascinating

So the nazis came about because kids in germany were getting spanked?

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Hi i've been lurking and find this idea fascinating

So the nazis came about because kids in germany were getting spanked?

Lmao. Yeah, that's what the dude said!

 

[kinglear]

Lmao. Yeah, that's what the dude said!

so who spanked their kids more nazis or communists? lol

 

[Deleted member 16771]

so who spanked their kids more nazis or communists? lol

There's a PhD in that, dude, try the LSE

 

[kinglear]

There's a PhD in that, dude, try the LSE

Maybe someone could start a league table?

 

[Jeffrei]

Whenever my siblings or I needed it we did get spanked. Thank God for that! When we needed it we really needed it. However, we did end up being some of the most well-behaved kids in our area (according to those who interacted with us. Not our parents). And it wasn't out of fear for the next spanking or anything. We just learned that bad actions have bad consequences. Of course, as we got older and we could understand more we realized that those consequences weren't always going to be spankings, and they would be more serious or they would last longer (at about that time our parents quit spanking as a punishment and moved on to grounding).

Young kids don't understand a lot because their brains are still developing (more so than teenagers). They need something tangible to discourage negative action. As they get older and their minds develop you can, and should, move on to the concepts of good and evil, action and consequence, and morality in general. But a young child won't understand these things and they will have little effect on them.

Some relatives of mine decided that they weren't going to go the spanking rout, and no one wanted to be around their kids. They were I'll behaved, they talked back, and they had very little self-control. Now I'm not saying that's going to be the case for every family, but from what I've observed in my limited experience spanking is an early way to help guide your child to develop character. If you can get that instilled at a young age, it will make the older ages a lot easier to deal with.

 

[kinglear]

Some relatives of mine decided that they weren't going to go the spanking rout, and no one wanted to be around their kids. They were I'll behaved, they talked back, and they had very little self-control. Now I'm not saying that's going to be the case for every family, but from what I've observed in my limited experience spanking is an early way to help guide your child to develop character. If you can get that instilled at a young age, it will make the older ages a lot easier to deal with.

if a childs behaviour got worse as they grew up because they didn't learn boundaries and then they started getting involved in hard drugs and gangs and violence then not disciplining the child didn't do them or society any favours

If a parent has no power to discipline their child then what can they do in extreme cases?

Will the state be kind to their child or will the state just lock their child up in an institution?

In which case would parental discipline be less harmful?