Often I think people mistake abusive violence and discipline. Given that we're all just meat puppets and operant conditioning is well understood, punishment as a form of discipline is necessary; neutering a parent's ability to physically punish is a grave mistake of our society. However, as you describe, anecdotes of unprovoked violence is abuse. Violence with the intent to cause pain rather than serve as punishment is abuse.

There's no room in this world for abuse. However, a society that does not apply physical punishment when appropriate is equally doomed.

The fact that we no longer condone appropriate physical punishment, I feel, comes from us collectively "erring on the side of caution" as it is too easy for people to cross the line from punishment to abuse. Unfortunately, it's the risk aversion to letting parents make such a mistake that has ultimately created worse problems.

(Reply) (Thread)

Maybe, but I think Mr. Reynolds is right. When you pick up a weapon to "punish" your child, you have stepped over any reasonable line of behavior.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, I agree with you and Sean, which I indicated when I wrote this sentence:

"Violence with the intent to cause pain rather than serve as punishment is abuse."

I was careful to put forth my working definitions for what I considered punishment vs. abuse first, then indicate that I agreed in considering violence with the intent to cause pain (i.e., using a weapon) is, in my mind, clearly abuse and never punishment.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay, I read your lack of mention of a weapon combined with the last paragraph as denying that a belt or a wooden spoon or what have you is "Violence with the intent to cause pain rather than to serve as punishment is abuse."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"However, a society that does not apply physical punishment when appropriate is equally doomed."

See, I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with you here on the assumption that the sentence you implied was:

"However, a society that does not apply physical punishment [to children] when appropriate is equally doomed."

I think behavioral science has pretty adequately shown that there are many other ways to affect a child's behavior then causing them physical pain (regardless of intent).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

There is a distinct issue with the fact that physical punishment is the application of force, and the application of force to those who have no way of fighting back and no legal redress (like, say, children) is always morally questionable at best. (Some times it is necessary, but necessity does not imbue an an otherwise non-good action with goodness.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

At a certain age--when children are pre-rational beings--avoidance behavior may be necessary.

I'd really appreciate a citation to something peer-reviewed that enumerates what other ways there are to affect pre-rational beings such as young children. I'm serious--if you know of such scientific works, I would appreciate a reference to it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You mean, like how we train animals?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Humans exceed the intelligence of dogs and cats at some absurdly young age like six months but typically remain imbecilic in human society for years. I'm not sure animal training techniques apply to kids in the 3-10 range.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My point is that we have techniques of pos and neg reinforcement that don't involve pain, and they work on nonsentient creatures (like animals) and adult humans, I'm sure there are some that work on "pre-rational beings" (as dossy calls them) and don't involve beatings.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)