ELC501 Sample of an Argument and the Written Analysis for Students

Sample of an Argument and the Written Analysis Based on It Why You Shouldn't Spank Your Child I

The idea is spreading. Sweden was the first to completely ban corporal punishment in 1979, and has since been followed by 15 other countries. Corporal punishment in schools has been outlawed in 107 states. The Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children provides a list of supporters. Its aims are endorsed by, among others, UNICEF and UNESCO.

II

There are various arguments from legal authority, including the judgments of higher-level courts, and the recommendations of United Nations committees and their opinions on treaty interpretation. But the moral arguments seem to boil down to two: a rights-based claim, and a consequence-based claim: "Hitting people violates their fundamental rights to respect for their physical integrity and human dignity, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Children are people too and equal holders of human rights... Corporal punishment... has been found to be a threat to the healthy development and welfare of children and their societies, and an ineffective form of discipline or control. Constructive, non-violent, child discipline is needed. It should be formulated and applied in a manner that respects the human dignity and rights of the child and understanding of child development." – from a summary of a UNESCO report dated 15 June 2005, Eliminating Corporal Punishment – The Way Forward to Constructive Child Discipline.

III

Information on possible consequences, and on parenting without corporal punishment, is available from the global initiative, from Wikipedia on corporal punishment and on spanking,

and

from

private

sites

such

as http://www.corpun.com/

or http://www.nospank.net/. But claims made against corporal punishment would include: – It doesn't work. There is short-term compliance but less long-term obedience. – It escalates into further abuse, especially since the amount of force required might have

to be increased over successive punishments. – It destroys trust and respect between children and parents/teachers. – It causes psychological problems in the child and in the adult the child becomes – subservience to authority or rebelliousness, resentfulness, aggression, depression, shyness and inhibition, insecurity, mistrustfulness and feelings of being unloved, lowered selfesteem, generalised fear, stress and anxiety. – It correlates with higher rates of drug abuse, alcohol dependence, delinquency and crime, and violence. Corporal punishment teaches the acceptability of violence and extends the cycle. Children who are hit grow up to strike their own children and spouses. IV

It's true, however, that a correlation is not causation, and that there's no necessity about these outcomes – a child who is struck won't necessarily turn into a vicious adult.

V

So, it is claimed, there is room for corporal punishment being justifiable under some circumstances. Replies to pro-corporal punishment arguments would include (adapting from the global initiative site):

VI

Children need to be disciplined. – But corporal punishment is a very ineffective form of discipline. The fact that parents, teachers and others often have to repeat corporal punishment for the same misbehaviour by the same child testifies to its ineffectiveness. In the countries where corporal punishment is banned there is no evidence to show that disruption

VII

of

schools

or

homes

by

unruly

children

has

increased.

Parents have the right to strike their children. – Children are not their parents' possessions. Children are entitled to the protection of human rights along with everyone else.

VIII Children need to be smacked for safety. – Of course you can pull them out of danger, and teach them about it. But if you strike them you're confusing the message and are distracting the child from the lesson to be learnt.

IX

It's just a little slap. – Firstly, the little slap still causes pain and is intended to do so. People who are violent against women don't get away with arguing "it was just a little slap". Secondly, there might be psychological damage without physical damage. Thirdly, "minor" punishment causes unexpected injury; children are small and fragile. Ruptured eardrums, brain damage, and injuries or death from falls are among recorded consequences.

X

Now, what you make of these arguments will depend, of course, on a whole host of other beliefs you might hold. For instance, do you believe in human dignity and human rights, or is all rights-talk "nonsense on stilts"? Are you persuaded by the psychological evidence? And how effective do you find alternative parenting techniques?

XI

For my part, I'd argue as follows. What is the purpose of any punishment? You lock people up to directly prevent harm to the community, to satisfy the community's bloodlust for

retribution/revenge,

to deter commission of similar crimes by the offender or by anyone else, and to rehabilitate the offender.

XII

But in any of these cases, punishment seems to stand in need of justification. That is, when you inflict suffering or physical damage on a person, or limit their freedom, you're doing something that, on the face of it, is wrong: you need to justify why it's right after all.

XIII In the case of corporal punishment, I would suggest, firstly, that evidence is increasingly against the efficacy of deterrence/rehabilitation, at least on my reading of it. This, like global warming, is an empirical matter, and a matter of whose authority you listen to. XIV Secondly, corporal punishment does seem efficacious in short-term prevention, and, as I have already mentioned, no one would suggest that the possible negative effects are inevitable (although it's also true that, at the time of punishment, you can never be sure that negatives won't eventuate). So there are quite likely to be situations where the good outweighs the bad, and where punishment is the best option. Such an argument is

advanced, for instance, by David Benatar. Lastly, as to retribution/revenge, I'd grant that this also is a possible defence. But I'd XV

suggest that, in a civilized society, the entire category should be consigned to the dustbin, along with most other murderous impulses that evolution has given us and that linger with us.

By Adrian November 25th, 2006

http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/arguments-against-corporal-punishment/

A Critical Analysis of the Given Article

In the article, “Why You Shouldn't Spank Your Child”, the author, Adrian deals with the issue of whether corporal punishment should be used to discipline children. He argues that corporal punishment should not be used as a means to discipline children. Words such as outlawed, bloodlust, murderous impulses and small and fragile reflect bias language through which his tone of disapproval and concern is conveyed as he attempts to convince parents, teachers and those involved in bringing up children about the negative impact that corporal punishment has on children. He begins his case by stating that there are legal and moral arguments against corporal punishment, but elaborates only on the moral perspective before presenting his own views on the topic. He makes extensive reference to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children website, and other sources such as a UNESCO report (15 June, 2005) and http://www.corpun.com, a resource for corporal punishment research that offer credibility to the moral argument which centres on the infringement of the children’s rights and the negative consequences of corporal punishment. However, there is a gap in his reasoning as he does not elaborate at all on the legal perspective. Moreover, there is evidence that he has referred to blogs such as Wikipedia which are unreliable sources of information. The claims made on moral grounds with respect to children’s rights are plausible as they state that children should be treated with dignity as human beings, and that hitting them infringes on their basic rights. There is a claim made for a constructive, non-violent form of child discipline that recognises the rights of a child and understands child development. However, he offers no viable alternative. Instead, he presents more claims that highlight the negative consequences of corporal punishment, namely  

It only ensures short-term obedience. It deteriorates into abuse with the increasing need for repeated punishment that requires

 

more force. It erodes trust and respect between children and parents/teachers. It causes psychological problems in children that will also affect them in the long term as

an adult. Having said all this, the author immediately presents a counter-argument conceding that corporal punishment will not necessarily result in the consequences mentioned earlier. He

accepts that a child “won’t necessarily turn into a vicious adult”. In doing so, this argument against corporal punishment is complete. Other counter-arguments such as:  Children need to be disciplined  Parents have the right to strike their children  Children need to be smacked for safety  It's just a little slap are deliberately worded so that they present corporal punishment in a negative light and are subsequently challenged. Some of these refutations may be correct but they lack validity as there is no external support such as research findings. Therefore, they appear merely as the author’s opinions. The author then presents three claims to support his own point of view on the issue. His first claim that corporal punishment does not deter or rehabilitate a child echoes what has been mentioned earlier. The increasing evidence to support this claim, however, is not provided. He simply states that its efficacy is as debatable as the global warming issue, and leaves it to the readers stating that acceptance of his view is a matter of which research they accept. The second claim hints of the author’s own lack of conviction about the negative effects of corporal punishment emerging in the future. The use of double negatives suggests that the author has a few mental reservations about the argument.

He mentions an expert, David Benatar but does not present

his view. Lastly, he argues that corporal punishment should not be condoned by a civilized society for the purpose of retribution/revenge. No rational parent or teacher would consider this option in administering corporal punishment. The author generally appears to be inductive in his reasoning, as he provides all the specific support as to why corporal punishment is unacceptable and attempts to generalize, for instance, claiming that any punishment needs justification to be administered and that acceptance of the argument is based on one’s beliefs or principles. Paragraph XIV presents an example of inductive reasoning. In summary, the author’s first and second arguments appear to contradict each other, thus weakening the author’s stand that corporal punishment should not be used as a means to discipline children. His last argument that parents and teachers impose corporal punishment as a means of retribution or revenge is unacceptable. Although he managed to show some validity

and credibility in some of the earlier claims, his overall argument against corporal punishment is weak and unsound due to lack of strong support. 751 words

Note: This is just one way of analysing the given article. Students need to justify their interpretation and analysis of a given article with examples.