OtherPapers.com - Other Term Papers and Free Essays
Search

Opponents of the Corporal Punishment of Children

Essay by   •  July 11, 2011  •  Essay  •  8,552 Words (35 Pages)  •  1,971 Views

Essay Preview: Opponents of the Corporal Punishment of Children

Report this essay
Page 1 of 35

Corporal Punishment

by David Benatar

Philosophy Department, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Reproduced by kind permission of the author

Originally published in Social Theory & Practice

________________________________________

________________________________________

1. Introduction

Opponents of the corporal punishment of children are rightly critical of its extensive use and the severity with which it is all too often inflicted. They have been at pains to show that corporal punishment is not used merely as a last resort, but is inflicted regularly and for the smallest of infractions.1 They have also recorded the extreme harshness of many instances of corporal punishment.2

I have no hesitation in joining the opposition to such practices, which are correctly labeled as child abuse. Where I believe that opponents of corporal punishment are wrong is in saying that physical punishment should never be inflicted. The popular as well as the educational and psychological debates about corporal punishment are characterized largely by polarization. Those who are opposed want to rule it out entirely. Those who are in favor tend to have a cavalier defense of the practice that is insensitive to many reasonable concerns about the dangers and abuses of this form of punishment.

It is surprising that the moral question of corporal punishment has escaped the attention of philosophers to the extent that it has. In this paper I want to consider the various standard arguments that are advanced against corporal punishment and show why they fail to establish the conclusion in defense of which they are usually advanced -- that such punishment should be entirely abandoned. However, in doing so I shall show that some of the arguments have some force -- sufficient to impose significant moral limitations on the use of corporal punishment -- thereby explaining, at least in part, why the abuses are beyond the moral pale.

After examining and rejecting the arguments that corporal punishment should be entirely eliminated, I shall briefly consider some positive arguments for corporal punishment before outlining what I take to be some requirements for its just infliction. However, before turning to any of this, some preliminary remarks will help to focus the subject matter I shall be discussing.

a. What is corporal punishment?

Corporal punishment is, quite literally, the infliction of punishment on the body. Even once it is differentiated from "capital punishment," "corporal punishment" remains a very broad term. It can be used to refer to a wide spectrum of punishments ranging from forced labor to mutilating torture. My focus in this paper will be on a form of corporal punishment that seems to me to be the pivotal area of controversy -- the infliction of physical pain without injury.3 I am not suggesting that this is the most problematic form of corporal punishment, but I shall focus on it because it seems to be the mildest level of corporal punishment at which the disagreement enters. Furthermore, the infliction of pain without injury appears to be the variety of corporal punishment that is at stake in the debate, even though opponents of corporal punishment make frequent reference to those instances of corporal punishment that result in injury.

Corporal punishment goes by a variety of names including, but not limited to, "beating," "hitting," "spanking," "paddling," "swatting," and "caning." Some of these terms are generic, others are specific to the severity of the punishment or the instrument used to inflict it. I shall use some of these terms interchangeably as general terms for corporal punishment.

b. Corporal punishment in homes and schools

There are a number of settings in which corporal punishment has been used, but my focus will be on homes and schools. These places share a number of important features that together set them aside from other possible settings for corporal punishment. In both homes and schools children are punished by adults -- either parents or teachers. Similarly, in both contexts punishment is often inflicted without formal trials and often for nonstatutory offenses -- offenses that are not proscribed by some home or school statute, but that are rather deemed (at least in the more justifiable cases of punishment) to be moral wrongdoings.

There are some significant differences between the home and school settings. Parents are more likely to have their children's interests close to heart and to love and care for them. Parents are also more likely to know their children better than teachers know their pupils. Teachers, after all, have relatively little contact with their pupils and the little they do have is usually in large classes. While some people are opposed to corporal punishment anywhere, even by parents in the home, others oppose only its practice outside the home. They might suggest that the differences between the home and the school are morally relevant and show why corporal punishment would be acceptable in the home but not in the school.

I do not think that the differences support this conclusion. Institutional punishment can never replicate the close connections of the family situation. That has some disadvantages and some advantages. One of the advantages is that the judgment of behavior and decision about punishment will not be blinded by love. (How many parents would sentence their homicidal offspring to lengthy prison terms? -- "He's a good boy really!")

Moreover, not all institutional settings are equally impersonal. Schools are much more personal than state courts. Teachers know their pupils better and are likely to care more for them than judges do for the accuseds that stand before them. Punishment in schools can thus be seen as serving a useful educational purpose. It facilitates the move from the jurisdiction of the family to the jurisdiction of the state, teaching the child that punishment is not always inflicted by close people who love one and know one. This is not to say that teachers, like judges, should not inquire into relevant aspects of a wrongdoer's background before inflicting a severe punishment.

2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment

Those who oppose corporal punishment do not normally do so on the basis of a single argument. Usually they muster a battery of reasons to support their view. They do not root their arguments

...

...

Download as:   txt (52.6 Kb)   pdf (471.7 Kb)   docx (27.7 Kb)  
Continue for 34 more pages »
Only available on OtherPapers.com
Citation Generator

(2011, 07). Opponents of the Corporal Punishment of Children. OtherPapers.com. Retrieved 07, 2011, from https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Opponents-of-the-Corporal-Punishment-of-Children/6736.html

"Opponents of the Corporal Punishment of Children" OtherPapers.com. 07 2011. 2011. 07 2011 <https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Opponents-of-the-Corporal-Punishment-of-Children/6736.html>.

"Opponents of the Corporal Punishment of Children." OtherPapers.com. OtherPapers.com, 07 2011. Web. 07 2011. <https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Opponents-of-the-Corporal-Punishment-of-Children/6736.html>.

"Opponents of the Corporal Punishment of Children." OtherPapers.com. 07, 2011. Accessed 07, 2011. https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Opponents-of-the-Corporal-Punishment-of-Children/6736.html.