How many European countries allow smacking of children?

Status
Not open for further replies.


What is the justification for hitting children?

Is it for behaviour management? If so, does that mean if a driver makes a mistake on the road that i get to stop them, pull them out of their car and smack them? No

Do you smack because they don't understand reasoning? If they can't understand reasoning, then they equally can't understand why you're snacking them. You're not teaching them anything useful or moral, just that they should fear their parents for inflicting pain on them, which is unacceptable, lazy and immoral.

It might get results, but it would also get results to teach me to put the toilet seat down, if every time I failed a giant came after me and was allowed physically hit me - and I was at least capable of understanding why.
 
Surely smacking your child is a demonstration to yourself that you are not a very good parent.

If you could rely on your giving them a damn good bollocking would get their attention and improve their ways, it would demonstrate that the values you have taught them have sunk in.

I have to say, i'm not now or ever will be a parent. But i was a twat of a kid once.
 
Well I've both swore at my 9 year old and smacked him on the leg this morning due to home schooling communication issues. Cheeky little git deserved it.

I very rarely use physical punishment (probably smacked him less than 10 times ever) and never uncontrolled. There are usually more effective ways to discipline a child, but the short, sharp shock has its place imo.
 
Parent A out shopping. Kid goes to knock some bait off the shelf. Parent gives kid a quick smack and tells them not to do it again.

Parent B instead sits the kid down, and runs through how someone picked that fruit as part of a hard day's graft, and it was then delivered, put there and is for others to eat. Before then pointing out how shopping would be chaotic of everyone just went about knocking bait off the shelf. By this point Parent A is through the tills and in the car back home whilst the kid of parent B is wishing his parent would stop boring the arse off him.
 
dangermows said:
Parent A out shopping. Kid goes to knock some bait off the shelf. Parent gives kid a quick smack and tells them not to do it again.

Parent B instead sits the kid down, and runs through how someone picked that fruit as part of a hard day's graft, and it was then delivered, put there and is for others to eat. Before then pointing out how shopping would be chaotic of everyone just went about knocking bait off the shelf. By this point Parent A is through the tills and in the car back home whilst the kid of parent B is wishing his parent would stop boring the arse off him.
Click to expand...
I know that was somewhat tongue in cheek, but that's really just a base version of a sort of egoistic utilitarianism, from a philosophical view. That the practicality and usefulness of the outcome for a particular individual or class of individuals (the parent, in this case) justifies the method.

What do you think about this little thought experiment:

Person A and B run identical businesses, one in a world that allows slavery, the other in a world that doesn't.

Business person A - Has slaves, doesn't pay them or provide safe working conditions and rights Gives them an occasional whip when they defy instruction. Makes shit tonnes of money, and his paperwork is virtually nil.

Business Person B - Runs a company with paid employees, with human rights, contracted holidays and pay, safe working conditions etc. Makes less money, has a lot more responsibility towards staff, has shitloads more paperwork and makes far less money.

The outcome of having slaves can be incredibly beneficial to Person A (at least in the short term). Does that justify it?

This isn't a trick, and it isn't a direct comparison of harm between mine and your scenarios. It is an analogy to show you a reductio ad absurdum of the line of justification you gave. If it is immoral in my scenario, it is immoral in yours.
 
Ilios said:
I know that was somewhat tongue in cheek, but that's really just a base version of a sort of egoistic utilitarianism, from a philosophical view. That the practicality and usefulness of the outcome for a particular individual or class of individuals (the parent, in this case) justifies the method.

What do you think about this little thought experiment:

Person A and B run identical businesses, one in a world that allows slavery, the other in a world that doesn't.

Business person A - Has slaves, doesn't pay them or provide safe working conditions and rights Gives them an occasional whip when they defy instruction. Makes shit tonnes of money, and his paperwork is virtually nil.

Business Person B - Runs a company with paid employees, with human rights, contracted holidays and pay, safe working conditions etc. Makes less money, has a lot more responsibility towards staff, has shitloads more paperwork and makes far less money.

The outcome of having slaves can be incredibly beneficial to Person A (at least in the short term). Does that justify it?

This isn't a trick, and it isn't a direct comparison of harm between mine and your scenarios. It is an analogy to show you a reductio ad absurdum of the line of justification you gave. If it is immoral in my scenario, it is immoral in yours.
Click to expand...
You could have just said you think smacking is morally wrong. It would have been quicker.

I don't think it is mind.
 
Ilios said:
I know that was somewhat tongue in cheek, but that's really just a base version of a sort of egoistic utilitarianism, from a philosophical view. That the practicality and usefulness of the outcome for a particular individual or class of individuals (the parent, in this case) justifies the method.

What do you think about this little thought experiment:

Person A and B run identical businesses, one in a world that allows slavery, the other in a world that doesn't.

Business person A - Has slaves, doesn't pay them or provide safe working conditions and rights Gives them an occasional whip when they defy instruction. Makes shit tonnes of money, and his paperwork is virtually nil.

Business Person B - Runs a company with paid employees, with human rights, contracted holidays and pay, safe working conditions etc. Makes less money, has a lot more responsibility towards staff, has shitloads more paperwork and makes far less money.

The outcome of having slaves can be incredibly beneficial to Person A (at least in the short term). Does that justify it?

This isn't a trick, and it isn't a direct comparison of harm between mine and your scenarios. It is an analogy to show you a reductio ad absurdum of the line of justification you gave. If it is immoral in my scenario, it is immoral in yours.
Click to expand...

Forget all that. Nowt wrong with the odd smack. It's not like people are giving their kids a body shot and uppercut combination. Plus, in my scenario the kid knows they did wrong, and stops, but in a much quicker time, with no harm done to anyone.
 
Last edited:
dangermows said:
Forget all that. Nowt wrong with the odd smack. It's not like people are giving their kids and a body shot and uppercut combination. Plus, in my scenario the kid knows they did wrong, and stops, but in a much quicker time, with no harm done to anyone.
Click to expand...
Kids nowadays are as far away from slaves as it is possible to imagine. Little twats never have to lift a finger. I blame the mothers.
 
dangermows said:
Forget all that. Nowt wrong with the odd smack. It's not like people are giving their kids and a body shot and uppercut combination. Plus, in my scenario the kid knows they did wrong, and stops, but in a much quicker time, with no harm done to anyone.
Click to expand...
The harm is to the child, and the justification is a slippery slope. The slave knows they did wrong, so giving them no rights and whipping them is easier than having to going through a litigious disciplinary procedure...
 
Ilios said:
The harm is to the child, and the justification is a slippery slope. The slave knows they did wrong, so giving them no rights and whipping them is easier than having to going through a litigious disciplinary procedure...
Click to expand...

Nope, as I and many others have already said. Loads of us got the odd smack. No harm done.
 
Mexico said:
It would seem the only justification to hit kids so far is to save time.

If you have to smack your kids to get them to comply then you’re failing as a parent.
Click to expand...

It can be done as safety but needs to be done espicailly rarely as it won't have any effect otherwsie..

What constitutes smacking also.. does a tap on the hand that might give a little sting count as smacking. What is the definition.

For instance you have a toddler that keeps reaching up to a bit pan on a hob... You have said no many times.. you have removed them from the environmebt but they return and still want to touch pan.. a sharp tap to the hand next time they reach up can work. Shock tactics on occasion work .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top