In 355e of Plato's Republic, the character Socrates concludes that it is never right for a moral person to harm anyone. But he doesn't explain whether or not a moral person may be forced to hurt someone because no better alternative exists.
On first glance, it would seem that Socrates is against parents hurting their children as motivation for them to stop severely misbehaving. As he explains in 347 d-e, good rulers (stronger) look out for the well-being of their subjects (weaker), so a moral person would look out for the well-being of people who are less moral. If I apply this metaphor to the art of parenting, then (stronger) good parents and custodial guardians look out for the well-being of their children (weaker), and according to Socrates, this involves not hurting them.
But what if the parents have no other options? Parents try to motivate their children to respect them, and punish children when they are disrespected. Parents who allow a disobedient child to continue disrespecting them because they have not found an effective method of changing his behavior definitely are not looking out for their child's best interests. He will boss peers and authority figures around until someone stands up to him, and when this happens it will take a lot of time and patience to teach him how to respect others. He will probably be confused and angry because he does not understand his place in the social hierarchy - he might lash out physically and/or emotionally at others until he is stopped. Surely no moral parent wants this for his or her child.
Let us assume that the most gentle forms of reprimand have already been employed (ex. asking for an apology and to stop the bad behavior, giving warnings if he doesn't comply). If physical punishment is only employed as a last ditch effort, when parents believe that they're out of options, it may be in the child's best interests, much as it pains both parties to do so. If successful, then this small suffering now may prevent greater suffering later.
As long as the smallest amount of violence possible was used, I think Socrates would not believe parents who employ physical punishments were immoral necessarily, though perhaps he'd think them too impatient or unimaginative.
*Author's Note*
I hope this essay has not offended anyone. This essay does not represent my personal views, but what I think Plato or Socrates might say. I'm not sure how uncommon it was during Socrates' time for Greek parents to smack their children around if they misbehaved. If this was a common cultural practice, it may affect his views on the subject.
Walk in Beauty ~ Lisa
You raise the interesting question of the appropriateness, in principle, of corporal punishment in the reasoning of the Republic. This may be difficult to tease out as they do not address it directly, but the question of whether Athenian parents routinely beat their children seems peripheral (there is good historical reason to think that they did). If the argument leads to the conclusion that corporal punishment is problematic, then we need to pay attention to the argument, not the current or past practice.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we have yet to reach a point in the Republic in which they discuss what to do with those who break the rules of society, I imagine that Socrates would say that corporeal punishment is only fitting for animals, who cannot reason. He would talk to anyone, regardless of station, or age. I'm sure he was under the impression that everyone, children included, could be incentivized, reasoned with, and convinced to behave a certain way without the fear of a beating.
ReplyDeleteAre children considered "people" in the Republic? I haven't read any more of it than what we've been assigned for class, so I don't know. But if children are somewhat less than people, it's possible that the rules don't apply. Athens/Socrates/Plato would not be the first, nor the last, society to consider children as less than people.
ReplyDeleteI think it's fair to say the Athenians (or at least the male Athenians whose writing survives to us) considered children the property of their parents. However, this did not mean they could do whatever they wanted with them; ownership confers enormous responsibilities as well as rights.
ReplyDeleteI believe on the one side if physically harming ones child in the long run to help them better respect you and others it is generally looking out for them and could be argued that it is still moral.
ReplyDeleteBut if children are to be considered people we must decide at what age they are technically people and even if they are considered to be people are they capable of being reasoned with all the time?
I think that there sometimes exists no better alternative simply because of the limits of a parent's knowledge over the childs psyche + the parents' own stubbornness. I think of the child abstractly as a kind of blob, which at the slightest stimulation is morphed into another more developed blob. Parents respect for the child is generally easily internalized by the child, and when it is not there needs to be intermission in a way that can change or morph the child for teh "better", which of course puts a lot of pressure on the parents because pretty much no parent has the ability to judge what is "best" for a child in any objective way.
ReplyDelete