Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:48:02.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IN DEFENCE OF SPANKING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2019

Timothy Hsiao
Get access

Abstract

Opponents of spanking rest their arguments on the implicit assumption that punishment can only be justified by its corrective or deterrent effects. But this is a questionable assumption. Punishment is fundamentally about retribution: it seeks to give a wrongdoer what he deserves. It is for this reason that corporal punishment is morally permissible, irrespective of whether it corrects or deters future misbehaviour.

Type
Research Article
Information
Think , Volume 19 , Issue 54 , Spring 2020 , pp. 49 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 <https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/AAP-Says-Spanking-Harms-Children.aspx>.

2 Moskos, Peter, In Defense of Flogging (New York: Basic Books, 2011)Google Scholar.

3 Brennan, Jason, ‘Corporal Punishment as an Alternative to Incarceration’, in Surprenant, Chris W. (ed.), Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Incarceration (New York: Routledge, 2017), 294–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar.