RoR: Forum

Jon wrote:

I just have a problem with what I see as a bizarre notion: That when dealing with a rational mind, pain is preferable to other non-violent negatives which this boy would have grasped equally well and the lesson would have been equally effective.

Evidently the MIND of Hyrum Smith calculated greater total value by taking the whipping and attending the scouting event than by avoiding the whipping and missing the scouting event. His mother let him exercise his MIND and make a value judgment. At what point would he have otherwise learned experientially?

I challenge the notion that physical pain cannot serve as a valid incentive to encourage a MIND to focus. A man living alone in nature would rely on the feedback of pain and pleasure as action signals to tell him whether his actions offer benefits or detriments. This fundamental aspect of human nature needs to guide the laws of man.

While Ayn Rand ultimately stands correct to say that "force and mind are opposites" since no one can force a mind to focus, Leonard Peikoff's statement that "man chooses the causes that shape his actions" also stands true. Hyrum Smith had a set of causes or values from which to choose and he selected which ones to shape his actions. A different boy might have made different choices.

Luke Setzer

Post 21

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 11:35am

Michael,

You seem to be going off into an entirely different tangent - the age of adulthood has nothing to do with this discussion. Whether or not I am expected to be the legal guardian of my child, I am taking on the responsibility for them by having that child in the first place.

Now if I feel I need to spank the child, then I should be able to do so. However, if by spanking them I endanger or threaten their life, then I have broken the law. Because every child has a right to life (and every adult if they so choose).

Barbara,

You discuss the moral issue here:

"My conviction -- and I believe it is the conviction of the others who oppose physical punishment -- is that the infliction of pain and fear is not a proper means of teaching children."

I am not sure which is best - but obviously physical punishment should be avoided against any other human being, child or adult.

But as to their educational development, let's remember that physical chastisement up until recently was very much the norm. Remember the old phrase "Spare the Rod and Spoil the child"? Do you accept that the majority of adults up until recently had some sort of mental defect or deficiency because they may have been smacked, canned or even flogged?

Maybe even Ayn Rand, Einstein, Beethoven, Newton and Rembrandt were all smacked or even worse as children. Did they grow up impaired as mentally subnormal human beings?

I know George Orwell received quite arduous punishments at school which he later wrote about. Was his mind stunted afterwards?

I also agree that the constant exposure of a child to pain and fear must be unhealthy for their mental development.

However, I think the wise administration of a smack to a child as chastisement can actually have a beneficial effect. I also maintain that many of these "alternative" methods we see in public from the "non-smacking" parents only serve as a replacement of smacking and may actually have a deleterious effect. (E.g. If the parent just screams or verbally threatens the child).

Most psychologists realize that children as they grow up are testing the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong, what is appropriate and what is not. Some sort of chastisement is needed in order for them to get this sort of feedback from their guardian. They actually expect it. Of course a word or two afterwards about why it was wrong is quite essential too.

This doesn't mean that Parents necessarily have to use smacking, but their may be times when it is needed as a rapid response to some dangerous situation that the child has instigated. Sometimes children are completely oblivious to any verbal warnings to stop what they are doing

Post 22

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 11:52am

Luke,

He used his mind to choose, yes. But she could have offered two non-violent options and the same intellectual operation would have ensued. I think that a boy who attends Scout meetings is capable is learning through the pain-pleasure mechanism, as you suggest, in his everyday interactions with the world; by biting rocks, falling down, dropping knives on his feet. He doesn�t need pain issuing from Mother to learn that actions have consequences, sometimes-painful ones. By that age, he has known about painful consequences for years. By continuing to hit him over the head with that fact, so to speak, she is bypassing his mind.

Jon

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 1/17, 11:56am)

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 1/17, 11:57am)

Post 23

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 11:58am

And she waited a week. That�s not �immediate feedback�, that�s a twisted mind-game.

Post 24

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 12:43pm

Marcus wrote:

Most psychologists realize that children as they grow up are testing the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong, what is appropriate and what is not. Some sort of chastisement is needed in order for them to get this sort of feedback from their guardian.

Charles Tomlinson did a fine TOC tape several years ago called "How To Have Kids and Not Live To Regret It." He mentioned that the job of parents is to set boundaries and the job of the children is to push against them. This dynamic process of growth, properly conducted, lets the parents rationally expand the boundaries until the children can become fully functional, autonomous adults. I checked the Objectivism Store and evidently they no longer carry the tape.

Luke Setzer

Post 25

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 12:47pm

�He mentioned that the job of parents is to set boundaries and the job of the children is to push against them. This dynamic process of growth, properly conducted, lets the parents rationally expand the boundaries until the children can become fully functional, autonomous adults.�

Precisely correct.

Post 26

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 12:54pm

Luke,

That is one tape I must find, if there is one left in this universe. Thank you for mentioning it.

Jennifer

Post 27

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 1:11pm

Someone hasn't been paying attention. How this topic came up in the first place was a news post about a new law in Britain under which a parent who smacks & leaves a mark can go to jail for five years. That law came into effect at the weekend. It was enthusiastically supported by - shudder! - the leader of SOLO Law, who went further & suggested, in response to a question posed by me, that David Bertelsen might well find the police "getting involved" with the matter of his whacking of his son, were he in a jurisdiction where such a law applied. That's how that thread got started. I can only assume that the person who claims above that this was never the issue was busy writing a splendid article for The Free Radical when this discussion began. Or hasn't been spanked enough.

I have made my view on the criminalisation of smacking plain enough.

On the morality of smacking & more serious physical chastisement�first, as a non-parent I would never presume to say to a parent he/she shouldn't use such chastisement (let alone be imprisoned for it). It simply is not my prerogative, any more than it is the government's.

Second, as a disinterested observer who tries to deal in common sense rather than blubbering bubblewrapping, I tend to the view that corporal punishment within limits�"reasonable force," as the New Zealand law still allows�is probably much more effective�& much more cost-effective in terms of time wasted on counselling, therapy, grounding, tarot-reading & all the rest of it�than the alternatives. Like Luke, facing the choice of a caning or a lost weekend for a misdemeanour, I would choose the caning, knowing that I would not, like some crybabies here, be psychologically, let alone physically, scarred for life. I'm sure it would be painful enough to do the trick without inflicting the excruciating mental frustration of being confined for a whole weekend.

In any event, the morality of corporal punishment is open to debate. The vicious immorality of the law that has just come into effect in Britain is not.

Stepping back from this dispute for a moment�one of the things it has thrown up is a desire among members for a SOLO-Parenting sub-group. We're going ahead with that. I'm particularly thrilled with our choice of leader for it. Having tantalised you this far, I'll leave it to Joe to make the announcement when everything is ready.

Linz

Post 28

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 2:01pm

George,

Thanks for this article. And Luther, Marcus for adding to the sanity. I was getting a little depressed there for a while.

PS: Luther, I also learned to drive a tractor when I was about 12 on my uncle's farm in idaho. Then my cousins had me pulling the manure spreader. Nothing like the splat of ammonia laden cow crap on the back of the head!

(Edited by Mike Erickson on 1/17, 2:20pm)

(Edited by Mike Erickson on 1/17, 2:22pm)

Post 29

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 7:51am

I am only 21 years of age, so perhaps I have already lost my understanding of a child's psychology. If my argument is based on a false premise, someone please correct me.

I believe that it is not immoral to spank a child.

Children are children because they lack sophisiticated levels of cognition and memory, relative to adults'. Therefore, when seeking to discipline a child, for the child's own benefit, it is necessary that the punishment be in terms the child can comprehend and that the punishment is to be levied in a timely manner so that child does not divorce the crime from the punishment.

A spanking satisfies both of these requirements.

I do not think a young child could equate a half-hour in time out as the result of running into a street without looking. Perhaps a child can do this for, say, a temper tantrum, but in any case, the punishment must have the ultimate purpose of correcting unsafe or inappropriate behavior.

This brings us to a third requirement for punishment: any disciplinary measure must be age appropriate for the child. If I were a parent, I don't think I would put a 14-year-old in a half-hour of time out, nor would I require a child who couldn't write his own name to compose an essay stating why it is wrong to do such-and-such. These examples are rather ridiculous, but the essential point remains true.

So, taking these three requirements into consideration, perhaps there is only a small window in a child's life in which spanking is indeed appropriate, and perhaps necessary, depending on the trasgression. The posters of the previous thread's demand for a certain amount of creativity from parents in regards to discipline is just as important.

Post 30

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 2:21pm

Excellent! or should I say most excellent George?

Newberry

Post 31

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 3:33pm

And now a word from a non-spanking mom. My view on discipline is that the purpose is to teach and not to punish. When my kids were small I made a conscious decision not to use physical violence against the little people that I love so dearly. Yes, I may have have given a swat or two in my day, but what can I say... When the kids were babies I was part of a moms organization. I was not raised by wonderful parents so I had to learn to be one. I read all kinds of books which helped shape my parenting philosophy...Creative Parenting, How to Talk so Kids will Listen, Without Spanking or Spoiling.

I do hope that if and when you guys ever become parents, you will serious reconsider your pro-spanking views. I disagree with the general feeling in the club that kids need to be spanked. Behavior can be modified without resorting to physical punishment. Grounding, additional chores, taking away phone, internet, etc. seem to work for me. I can't wait to see the new parenting forum. I nominate Marsha Enright to be one of the leaders.

Post 32

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 4:04pm

Jon: �He doesn�t need pain issuing from Mother to learn that actions have consequences, sometimes-painful ones�And she waited a week. That�s not �immediate feedback�, that�s a twisted mind-game.�

Yeah, that�s one sick mama, although I think the latent sadism is as much in the offer of a �choice� of punishment as in the type of punishment.

We have a no-hitting policy in our household. Most of the time it has worked well. There are plenty of other punishment options, from withholding treats to time out, that work just as well.

That said, most parents will spend a good deal of their time physically directing their children, such as propelling them towards bed, or vigorously removing their sticky fingers from all manner of objects, so there can be a fine line between appropriate and inappropriate uses of force.

Parents are also required at times to put their children into the care of other adults, such as teachers and friends. In these situations, we support the authority of the adult in loco parentis, and most of us would grant that adult the right to chastise our child in a number of ways, from verbal rebuke through to deprivation and time out.

But the non-smackers among us would surely draw the line at granting such an adult the right to physically punish our child. What about the smackers? Would they be happy to see their child physically punished by another adult?

Brendan

Post 33

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 4:24pm

Apologies for my delay responding to this thread - big assessment tomorrow.

Given that Lindsay has singled me personally out for specific criticism on this thread let me clarify my position for anyone who did miss the other thread (and all of this should be clear from the posts in the other thread): I have said that I have serious moral issues with the use of corporal punishment on children (a view that I stand by) and initially that I thought all smacking should be legally banned in a significantly altered cultural context to the present one. I subsequently conceded that in the type of situation David Bertelsen was talking about, there would be no way to enforce such a law, and that in David's case that's probably just as well.

Now let me go back to something Lindsay said in the first post to this thread:

Clearly, the rights of children are of necessity, by the nature of reality, attenuated. They have the unabridged right to life, of course, but their rights to liberty & the pursuit of happiness are vested in their parents or guardians, & the law must recognise that. For the child, there can be no such thing as a right not to be punished.

I pretty much agree with the first two sentences, but from an objectivist standpoint I don't think the third, in so far as it refers to corporal punishment, follows. The parents or guardians must surely exercise those rights that they hold for the child in the child's rational interest, and only do so at all until such time as the individual is mature enough to exercise them on his own behalf. In other words the parents or guardians can't do anything that they please with the child, more specifically they can't do anything to the child that is objectively harmful. I think everyone would agree they shouldn't be allowed to let a child starve, or forcibly inject the child with heroin. So, can corporal punishment be objectively harmful to a child? And just to be clear, the issue I am talking about here is the almost ritualised punishment of a child whereby he is restrained while the parent repeatedly smacks or canes him, not a parent giving a child a swat as a last resort (which Barbara rightly identified as a straw man). The overwhelming majority of the evidence I've seen on this subject suggests that it can indeed be very harmful. Its humiliating and robs the child of dignity (to paraphrase Barbara) and basically says to the child that authority must be obeyed under fear of punishment (rather than on rational grounds). It doesn't mean that children are allowed to do as they please or are never punished, something which others far more qualified than I have elaborated on.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that's why I have such a moral problem with it, and why I see it as both a moral and legal issue. Now as I said to David and Alec over in the other thread, their posts made me stop and think about my position. So if anyone's interested in rational debate (and I stipulate rational) on any of what I've said above, I'm interested, I'm open to changing my mind on one or both issues. (On the other hand, anyone who just wants to throw insults and assertions, please leave me be.)

Regards
MH

Post 34

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 4:55pm

George,

I have found your soulmate (and perhaps my lost twin, on the really, really bad days):

The Misanthropic Bitch

MH,

I will be delighted to debate this issue with you further when my brain is less fuzzy. I've just finished my new web site and am in no mental condition to debate, rationally or otherwise.

Having said that, since we have finally gotten this issue down to its core -- that of individual rights, I am looking forward to the coming discussion.

I have seen enough of splitting hairs between smack and beat. Let's get down to the very root of individual liberties, and how they apply to children vs. adults.

Post 35

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 4:55pm

What is punishment and what is its purpose(s) as used by a parent? Are there not some cases that would call for corporal punishment and others that would not? My own answer to that question is "yes." As parents, we have the task of raising children who will become responsible and productive adults and be able to fend for themselves. They need to understand that all actions have consequences. We have the task of ensuring that our children stay out of harm's way. If my four-year old daughter pulled away from me and darted out into traffic, I would spank her bottom and tell her, "That might have hurt, but if you'd been hit by that car, you would hurt a lot more. Don't ever do that again." If my daughter threw mashed potatoes on the floor for the third time in a row and we were on a strict budget, she would get her hand slapped to be taught responsibility. If she didn't pick up her 64-crayons scattered around a room for the second time in a row, the crayons would be confiscated. If she kept screaming while I was on the phone to get my attention (which my daughter was prone to do when she was a child), she would have been sent into time out. In my mind, there are different types of consequences for different types of behaviors.

This said, I'm appalled to see all the physical, psychological or emotional punishment that is metered out inappropriately. A case in point was an occasion on which I witnessed a mother pinch and drag a child by his ear because he spilled ice cream out of his cone accidentally.

Several writers in this thread have asked for a "reasonable" discussion. In addition to that, I think this is way too important an issue to continue to be discussed in the abstract. I think we need specifics. Is corporal punishment appropriate? And, if so, when? What are the alternatives and what are the consequences if we don't act in certain situations?

Post 36

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 5:42pm

Jennifer: �Having said that, since we have finally gotten this issue down to its core -- that of individual rights, I am looking forward to the coming discussion.�

In Post #2 on the Ban on Smacking thread, I wrote, in part:

�Children�s rights are individual rights, and they are not �a whole other quagmire�, they are the very issue here.�

Jon

Post 37

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 5:45pm

What a long and painful couple of threads. I'm tempted to avoid it because many of the responses have been insane, and there's nothing more boring than a completely irrational conversation.

First, an announcement. We've created a new SOLO Interest group called "SOLO Parenting". Hong Zhang will be the leader of this group. You can find it on the front page as usual. The group front page has not been designed yet, but a forum exists.

Now, to the topic at hand. I think there are more than two topics being package-dealed together here. The first two is obviously the ethical vs. legal/political position on spanking. It should be obvious to everyone why it is improper to lump these together.

As far as the legal side goes, there's additional package dealing. One is that spanking your two year old is equivalent to beating your wife. One is that bludgeoning your child to death is the same as slapping their hand away from a hot stove. And of course, that a child is just a small adult with the full rights of one. I don't consider this topic interesting at all. I'm firmly in the camp that spanking should be legal, and I have a hard time taking the other camp seriously. And for those who think it should be illegal, I simply ask if physically stopping your child from jumping off a cliff or into a river should also be illegal

Unfortunately, the ethical side of the argument seems to be just as confused.

One major problem is that things that are true early in a child's life are not true later. The context changes constantly. What might be appropriate at one point is not appropriate for another. But there are generalizations being made as if a child were always the same. At the beginning, they have almost no rational faculty, and yet they have plenty of mobility. What do you do when a 1-year old starts running towards a hot stove? You physically restrain him. You don't try to explain to him that he'll die if he touches it. You don't softly explain to him why it's dangerous. You grab him and tell him "no". Would this be appropriate for a 19-year old? Of course not! Implying the two are the same is a huge dropping of context.

And this leads us to another huge confusion. Because of the initial news article, most of the latter discussion has revolved around "smacking" or spanking, or whatever. But many of the criticisms aimed at this are much more widespread. The wider issue is if you treat a child as a child, instead of as an adult, are you teaching him to be a child forever?

The first argument, one given, is that if you use fear of physical punishment then the child will only learn to live in fear. But that also applies to any punishment. Even the punishment of not giving treats. Or "time-out". Or anything else.

A similar argument could be made for ever substituting your own reasoning for the child's. If a 3-year old doesn't want to eat his vegetables, and you tell him to anyway, you're teaching him to trust your judgment, not understand it himself. If you tell the same kid not to put his finger into a electric outlet, you're substituting your own judgment for him. This is teaching them to accept authority.

A similar argument could be made if you make the kid take your word on faith. If you say the hot stove will burn him, without giving proof, then you're encouraging faith-based following. If you tell him there's this magic thing called electricity that'll kill him, it's faith, not reason. And on and on.

The implication of any of this line of thinking is that if you ever refuse to let a child do as he pleases, you're teaching them to be mindless slaves. I find the notion ridiculous. Getting too focused on spanking just obscures this point. Either you treat a child like you would an adult, or you don't. You would never physically restrain an adult because he was making being too loud in a grocery store. You would never send an adult to "time-out", not allowing them to leave their room until you say. The list goes on and on. Is anyone seriously arguing this position outside of the spanking debate? Do you really think a child, no matter how young, is just a small adult? Does the parent really have no right or ability to make a decision for the infant?

I have to give a brief example. And old friend called me upset once. She and her husband went out, and left their 2-year old (maybe younger) with a baby-sitter. They got back late, and were gone a long time. She found out that the baby-sitter did not feed the kid. Why? Because the baby-sitter treated the kid as an adult. She asked the kid if she was hungry, and the kid said no. So the kid starved. And the mother had given specific instructions to feed the kid. Of course, the child probably just missed her mom, was upset to have a stranger taking her place, or whatever. But the point of having the baby-sitter there is that the kid is not capable of taking care of herself.

I want to add one more note. Because a child's mobility starts way before their rational faculty is ready, one of the first words they learn is "No". They learn that they're not supposed to do certain things, or go near certain places. That word signifies their boundaries at the beginning like nothing else. They learn it long before they have the ability to understand the "why" behind the "no". A parent sets the boundaries first, and explains them to the kid as he is able to learn. But the boundaries are a requirement for the child's life. If you say "no" to the hot stove, discussion of whether the child understands it is secondary to whether he survives it. The priority in those cases must be obedience first, understanding second.

Let me state what should be obvious to everyone here. Rational self-interest is not an automatic process. To give an example, there are people on this forum who argue why exactly we shouldn't violate the rights of others. There are people on other forums who argue that we should if we can get away with it. These are often incredibly complicated discussions, and take a host of life-experience to narrow in on it. Why shouldn't you beat someone? Perhaps you recognize that a value gained through force is not a value you can take pride in. Perhaps you think being a parasite is not compatible with the optimal life. Or perhaps you just think that if you do it, someone's going to beat you up.

Now, when dealing with a toddler, which is the answer they're going to accept and understand? Will you quietly explain Objectivist ethics and politics to someone who has a vocabulary of three words? Will you draw upon their vast store of life-experience to make the connection clear to them? Or will you tell them to stop and enforce it if necessary?

When a child is capable of understanding something for himself, or making the right decision, certainly let him. Give them room to grow as they fill into their eventual position of an independent adult. But just because they're not ready for it all at once does not mean you're teaching them to never be ready for it. Just because you make them dinner at first does not mean you're teaching them to be reliant on you forever to make their food. Just because you buy their clothes, or dress them, or bathe them, or wipe their bottoms, does not mean you're crippling them psychologically and preventing them from ever doing those things in the future. Just as providing them food and shelter doesn't mean they'll always be dependent on you. Anyone who thinks this is true is essentially arguing that babies should be thrown out on birth to fend for themselves, as if the process of child development is a fiction.

So the point is, the arguments given against spanking so far seem to suggest a much wider issue, since they are arguments against any interference in the physical or mental autonomy of the child. When stated in general terms, it should be obvious that this is untenable. A child wouldn't survive if anyone was foolish enough to follow that principle.

So then, what's the big deal about spanking or smacking your child?

Post 38

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 5:56pm

Joe,

I agree entirely with the points you've made, except one (and perhaps I'm being a bit pedantic). Where you say:

What do you do when a 1-year old starts running towards a hot stove? You physically restrain him. You don't try to explain to him that he'll die if he touches it. You don't softly explain to him why it's dangerous. You grab him and tell him "no". Would this be appropriate for a 19-year old? Of course not!

I see this as an area of implied consent. If I see my 25 year old friend running headlong into a dangerous situation of which he is unaware, and I'm reasonably sure he'd consent to me doing so if in full possession of the facts, I'll grab him to prevent him going further, and quickly explain the danger (preferably before he knocks me on my arse).

Post 39

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 6:34pm