Is this a good reply to a pro spanking Facebook comment?

[ThisisJoe]

Hi all,

 

I shared "The Science of Spanking" podcast (youtube link) on my Facebook this morning and just got the following comment from a friend:

 

*********************

"I believe It's really hard for people without kids to post this sort of stuff & have people with kids give them any credibility.I smack my kids, but when you do have kids you'll see that there are a million instances of grey area other than "smacking is bad"...I learnt that myself with 3 kids under 6.For example the last time I smacked my oldest who is now 5 was about 2 years ago when she ran across the road after I told her not to...I could not be politically correct when it came to her life being on the line...It's this sort of thing people without kids don't think of when they say smacking is wrong."

***********************

 

I want to reply underneath her comment with the men/wives word replacement idea:

 

***********************

I believe It's really hard for men without wives to post this sort of stuff & have men with wives give them any credibility.I hit my wife, but when you do have a wife you'll see that there are a million instances of grey area other than "hitting my wife is bad"...I learnt that myself with my wife.For example the last time I hit my wife was about 2 years ago when she ran across the road after I told her not to...I could not be politically correct when it came to her life being on the line...It's this sort of thing men without wives don't think of when they say hitting is wrong.

***********************

 

Just wanted your thoughts on my re-wording and if you feel it needs tweaking? The only thing that I think may need to change is the running across the road part. Should I change it to another circumstance?

 

Thanks for your time in advance! This is my first post on the board, I'm excited!

 

Cheers,

 

Joseph

[Kevin Beal]

I think it's a good response. I might change the running across the road bit to something like burning the dinner and maybe change "hitting my wife is bad" to "hitting wives is bad" so it sounds more like a general rule.

 

That is, if you're going to engage. Obviously she didn't watch the video since her comment makes no sense in response, so, it might be pointless to engage.

 

It's a really good response though, I think, for what it's worth.

 

[mshidden]

Yeah but maybe you could loosen her up this way.  “I know spanking  seems like a good, idea, but it just a bad idea and it does real harm. You feel bad for hitting them, and they feel horrible for getting hit. Lets put the idea in a different context...”  Maybe I am wrong, but I think that argument can sound snotty or snobby.  Remember to validate people, and remember to give people a way out. Your gift  of knowledge is not a club, truly offer it to her, and help her understand the usefulness of your understanding.. Good luck

[Kevin Beal]

Your gift  of knowledge is not a club, truly offer it to her, and help her understand the usefulness of your understanding

I've probably just misunderstood, but are you saying that what he has written is like clubbing this woman with knowledge? That it's abusive in some way?

 

If so, I'd be interested to hear how you understand that to be the case. Maybe it's just some block of mine, but I don't think there is anything abusive or trolly or inappropriate about what he has written.

 

Also, I'm not sure I understand where you got "You feel bad for hitting them" from. My interpretation of what she wrote was something like: "I don't feel bad, because...".

 

And I don't understand your advice to validate people. Surely, we shouldn't validate people in making mistakes or doing things which are immoral, right?

 

I confess to having had more than a couple unproductive and escalating exchanges with people online, so it could be some failure on my part. But if you're game, I'd be interested to read your reply

[dsayers]

For example the last time I smacked my oldest who is now 5 was about 2 years ago when she ran across the road after I told her not to...

I could not be politically correct when it came to her life being on the line...

 

If the daughter's life was her concern, how did it come to pass that the 3 year old could even cross the road? I'm assuming that being beyond child-bearing age, she is larger than her daughter. She has full control and full RESPONSIBILITY to create a safe environment for the child. She has no right to endanger her daughter by CREATING a scenario in which her daughter could lunge in front of a moving automobile. Therefore, she has no right to assault her daughter for something that was a failing on her own part.

 

She also erred in saying she wasn't politically correct. To assault somebody for not obeying you is very POLITICALLY correct. It's just morally horrifying.

 

I smack my kids, but when you do have kids you'll see that there are a million instances of grey area other than "smacking is bad"...

I learnt that myself with 3 kids under 6.

 

Maybe if she had learned BEFORE having the first child that having a child is very demanding, she wouldn't have engaged in the child-damaging behavior of having more kids before the first even has a fully formed personality. Saying, "I learned that myself" means, "I wanted to smack and was too exhausted to care about them not wanting to be assaulted by the very person that is supposed to be caring for them." When we think we've found the answer, we stop looking for the real answer.

 

If I may be so bold, when you call this person your friend, are you talking in the facebook context or an actual friend? If the latter, and she's had children for six years, I have to ask: How did it come to pass that you could call such a person a friend? If the former, why would you continue to call her a friend in any context?

[mshidden]

Let me clarify, my original point, and sorry I did not come back to this issue sooner. Kevin Beal "Surely, we shouldn't validate people in making mistakes or doing things which are immoral, right?"  I actually find that the most interesting issue to address, and it has to do with effecting change, we validate people to give them power, so they can make the change. So I am not suggesting we validate their action, but validate them as people, and empower them to make the change we are asking of them.  We do not want to take power away from people we want to try to keep a power positive position. "Yeah it's a lot of work but I know you can do it." That is a power positive statement. If you say "Spanking is wrong, it only hurts your child." That is a power negative statement, truth has nothing to do with it in this case, it is about effecting change.

 

​I say this, because I see people saying things that I agree are technically true, but they are saying them in a power negative manner which decreases the possibility of buy in from the person their talking with.  Some times a power negative statement can work, but we should be aware we are doing it.  Truth is not the cure for being nice.

[LovePrevails]

In my view (and experience) if you want to have success converting people to stop spanking you need to  focus on what the alternatives are

 

find out why they want to spank and think spanking is useful and important 

then explain how you could approach meeting those goals with peaceful parenting BETTER

If they say "discipline" throw in facts and research to back up how children who are spanked are more likely to act out in school

 

here is a video on the topic

[marius]

Well the comparison with wifes is in fact ignorant of the fact that children need to be educated while wifes are already adult and independent.

I am by no means advocating hitting.

And i think its imporptant not to misinterpret the reason why spanking is bad. Its not because its immoral, its because it leads to bad consequences for the child. If hitting was the only way to defend your children from running in the street im sure you wouldnt have a problem with it. So the principle is not the cause. I really would like someone to point me where im wrong. But utilitarianism seems the only method that works here.

 

Can someone point me to success stories of peaceful parenting, what are the outcomes of people that follow this peaceful method?

I want to bring this up in a discussion with a parent and see where it goes.

[dsayers]

And i think its imporptant not to misinterpret the reason why spanking is bad. Its not because its immoral, its because it leads to bad consequences for the child.

 

Are you saying that it is okay to steal, assault, rape, or murder so long as the outcome is a favorable one? Isn't "the ends justifies the means" the root of all the evils in the world? Wouldn't providing this model for a child lead to an unfavorable outcome?

 

We live in a world of matter and energy. The properties of which are consistent. This is the basis for logic and reason. Which literally means that in a world of matter and energy, the moral consideration is paramount. It's objective, logical, reasonable, and consistent.

 

Going back to the quote, what are "bad consequences"? Couldn't it be argued that in a world full of coercion and propaganda, having a lower IQ might be better? I've certainly heard many times the claim that with a world this messed up, the very act of bringing a child into it is horrible. This is precisely why the subjectivity of utility takes a distant backseat to the moral consideration.

[corpus mentium]

If hitting was the only way to defend your children from running in the street im sure you wouldnt have a problem with it.

 But hitting isn't any way to defend children from running into the street. It is assaulting them for the parent's lack of preparation.

[christopherjames]

Well the comparison with wifes is in fact ignorant of the fact that children need to be educated while wifes are already adult and independent.

The fundamental point is that children are people. By replacing children with wife in the example above, any programming to the contrary is harder to avoid and suppress. Moreover, children have a remarkable intelligence which is chronically underestimated, ignored, stifled by a paternalistic mindset. I felt when reading the words "children need to be educated" a hint of paternalism. Not a criticism just an observation. On the subject of the intelligence of children have a look at The Philosophical Baby: What Children's Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love and the Meaning of Life. 

 

Regarding success stories... compared to what? If we are comparing peaceful parenting to hitting and abusing children, it's less about defending peaceful parenting and more about eliminating the immoral options. The outcome or benefit is that when you do not hit and/or abuse your child, you must negotiate and communicate with your child. Taking the wife analogy, imagine this: "Can someone point me to success stories of not beating your wife, what are the outcomes of people that follow this not beating your wife method?" In the absence of violence, a great many solutions will manifest, but none will do so until we correct the issue of violence first. 

[marius]

@ Dsayers

Utilitarianism is incorporated into the principle of "aggression is bad" (if it wasnt creating a disadvantage for one of the sides, then it wouldnt be theft/murder) - so you are already using something that you want to disprove.

And yes its ok to steal if no one loses money. See what i did? it doent make sense precisely because the bad consequence is gone.

Im still processing the real ramifications of "the ends justifies the means" and i welcome any feedback on what im saying here. It is obvious that it has led to tragic consequences in the past, but at the same time when i hear "follow the principle with no regard for the consequences and have faith" i dont see it as avoiding any danger (yes i actually heard that here)

Regarding the "bad consequences" subjectivity, it helps to use the actor as the central point of reference. (edit: this makes sense for economic decisions but not for moral questions) So for example if you want to determine the quality of the decision you compare it with what the actor wanted to accomplish. But this is getting too abstract for me now.

 

 

 

@corpus

what i was trying to do is prove that in at least one instance (even if hypothetical) the principle of non-aggression is not the fundamental criteria, but there is a higher one, more basic.

Why is it OK(moral) for you too push a person out of the trains way? its aggression, but forgiven due to the consequences.

As i said before im not 100% on this which is why i post.

 

@ christopher

i completely agree that the child is underestimated, and moreover i have an interest in what a child that is not broken can teach me about the world rather what i could teach him. But at the same time you cant deny the fact that parents have a responsibility to help get the child ready for the challenges in life which is what i was talking about. And they need to be educated if the parents want to be called moral parents. In contrast with someone who brings a new being in the world and then doesnt have any regard for the outcome.

 

A success story would mean higher levels of happiness (unquantifiable) maybe subject to expert evaluation/ psychologists. Higher income. Lower level of criminality (i dont think statistics for this are a problem to find). Willingness to cooperate and help others.

 

 

Clearly the method of convincing parents to act differently needs an overhaul. Its going extremely slowly and relying solely on interest/utility/benefit of the parents is a way of doing it.

This is important to me because i want to change the Educational System when i get to understand how the world works. And You have to do it from the basics. Understand the reinforcing loops/ balancing loops/ and know where to push. Massive respect to Stefan Molyneux for doing this in a systematic way but a new approach would be useful.

[dsayers]

@ Dsayers

Utilitarianism is incorporated into the principle of "aggression is bad"

 

Aggression isn't bad because it's harmful, as harmful is subjective. It's bad because it's inconsistent (read: immoral). To aggress against another is to accept self-ownership while rejecting self-ownership. This is objective and universal.

[marius]

Aggression isn't bad because it's harmful, as harmful is subjective. It's bad because it's inconsistent (read: immoral). To aggress against another is to accept self-ownership while rejecting self-ownership. This is objective and universal.

"Harmful" is something that is bad and unwanted, which is the reason why the contradiction of a forceful action arises.

I understand UPB and think its a consistent philosophical work that is useful for judging moral propositions.

 

My  problem is with using UPB to guide action, which is not something its supposed to do as i understand.

 

Which do you think is a more convincing argument for the usual parents: Dont hit because its immoral. / Dont hit because it will produce problems for the child, and youll have a bad experience, and the world will have a bad experience.

We are not brains in a tank that think in philosophical terms and truths. We care about real world results and how something interferes with our lives.

 

How much success would Stef have if he didnt bring up the benefits of peaceful parenting and only talked about the principle?

Again we humans use a mixture of principles(could be of strange origin) and utility/consequences to make decisions, and thats not going to change because again we are biological beings concerned with survival primarily and growth secondarily. So you are using energy on making humans not be humans.

Can you guide your action based on abstract principles and have no regard for the consequences ?

 

Whats your experience with hearing UPB and similar arguments here and your reaction? were you skeptical? i see so many blind followers that cant explain their position here on FDR and then get hostile when their beliefs are doubted. Its not true that those who listen are inherently entrepreneurial, skeptical- some are just too damaged to stand on their feet.

 

"He that questions much shall learn much."—Bacon.

Thanks for having patience with me, patience and respect is something new for me.

[Kevin Beal]

My  problem is with using UPB to guide action, which is not something its supposed to do as i understand.

Then you've misunderstood it.

 

Stef has stated that On Truth is about the past, UPB, the present, and RTR, the future. The reason that UPB is about the present is because it's used to evaluate the propositions (implicit or otherwise) involved in acting, according to the standards of universality and logical consistency.

 

UPB reveals whether or not the proposition pertains to the moral good, vice & virtue or the morally neutral. And from there you can determine if it is in fact good or virtuous (or what you'd subjectively prefer). This is really just another way of saying that it's a guide for how one ought to act.

 

It would be pretty silly to imagine that a theory of ethics / aesthetics would not guide how people act.

[corpus mentium]

@corpuswhat i was trying to do is prove that in at least one instance (even if hypothetical) the principle of non-aggression is not the fundamental criteria, but there is a higher one, more basic.Why is it OK(moral) for you too push a person out of the trains way? its aggression, but forgiven due to the consequences.As i said before im not 100% on this which is why i post.

You've given a different situation with different vocabulary containing different meanings from your earlier post. Is pushing someone out of the way of a train aggression? It may be necessary to define aggression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression

 

Earlier you didn't say push the child out of harm's way. You said (emphasis mine):  

If hitting was the only way to defend your children from running in the street im sure you wouldnt have a problem with it.

Saying hitting a child to "defend" him from running in the street is a very different situation than pushing or lifting him out of the path of oncoming traffic. Your scenario seems to imply that hitting happens preemptively. Is that what you mean?

 From what I understand, pushing someone out of the path of a train is in the same special case category as a surgeon cutting open an already unconscious person who needs immediate attention. We understand that the vast majority of people would prefer living to dying. We don't use our fists/open hands, belts, paddles, etc. to inflict pain to move someone out of traffic. We physically move them without such methods. A surgeon uses anesthesia before using the scalpel. In both cases we reasonably understand that had the person previously known, he likely would have given consent to short-term unpleasantness in order to achieve long-term health. Steps are taken to minimize pain. This is not true of hitting. I think anyone who has witnessed a child being hit would agree that children tend to be very vocal in expressing their non-consent to what is being inflicted upon them. If you asked children what their preference would be in solving the traffic scenario, do you think they would ask you to hit them or solve it some other way? In only very exceptional cases would someone object to being pushed out of the way of oncoming traffic (or being operated on in the case of unconsciousness, e.g. after a botched suicide attempt).

 

Stef talks a bit about the traffic scenario in the first few minutes of podcast 196:http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_196_Parenting_Part_1_Credibility.mp3

 

[marius]

Ok my usage of the word aggression was not correct.

But you missed the point which you yourself have made: the fact that force can be used sometimes because the consequences would be better for all sides involved. Now you are going to say that consequences are hard to be defined as better. But you have used the surgeon example by assuming that we agree on some fundamentals of health.

 

And my real goal was not to find an impossible world where violence is the only means of stopping children from doing anything, it was to prove the points i went on to make but none of you are addressing them.

 

For disclosure i will mention that somebody told me that i was hit for running into the street.

But if you look carefully i am not making any excuses for such unacceptable actions.

"If hitting was the only way to defend your children from running in the street im sure you wouldnt have a problem with it."

[dsayers]

Which do you think is a more convincing argument for the usual parents: Dont hit because its immoral. / Dont hit because it will produce problems for the child, and youll have a bad experience, and the world will have a bad experience.

We are not brains in a tank that think in philosophical terms and truths. We care about real world results and how something interferes with our lives.

 

And if you offer a crack addict some crack if they don't aggress against their child, you'll get the desired outcome also. But this is meaningless in a normative consideration. A person who dispenses with the moral consideration is saying that the initiation of the use of force is okay as long as they agree with the outcome. In other words, it is subjective. I feel I've been pretty clear on this point. If you could elaborate as to what part you disagree with, it would be beneficial I think.