Posted: Feb 13, 2014 10:23 pm
I stop short when it comes to children, however. Here we can interpret children to be anyone under 18, but still of a developmental level which allows them to appreciate their actions. It strikes a chord of alarm to hear someone say that he wants to see a child to suffer. Yet, I could totally understand that sentiment if that child were a 16 year old violent rapist. I dunno if I agree with it, but I understand it.
In any case, how would a person answer those parents? Say I was spanked as a 12 year old boy, since I was a bully who beat the crap out of another classmate. Say my parents spanked me just for the sake of retributive justice. They think I deserved it.
I think most people would answer it by simply rejecting the "eye for an eye" approach to society, usually on the basis of the reasoning that it leads to "..till everyone is blind". It's a horrifically flawed system because it usually causes more problems than it solves so, in a sense, you yourself would need to be punished for contributing for the sorry state of affairs.
But even if we accept the retributive assumption of punishment, there is still a clear distinction between an adult and a child that depends on you to teach them about the world. If my [future] child were to become a school bully and beat people up, I could smack them about because their behavior disgusts me but what's the point? I was in charge of teaching them the correct way to behave and it would likely be my failure, so maybe I should ...spank myself (in a non-congratulatory manner)?
More problematically is (as touched on above) even if you accept the retributive system, you can't escape the facts of behavior modification. That is, you can say that you feel justifying in smacking the bully kid because he deserved it but we know that: a) this is unlikely to change his behavior, and b) it's entirely possible that it will worsen his behavior. So what kind of justice is that?
It's like "punishing" a murderer by inflicting harm through several painful medical procedures but specifying that those medical procedures include things like implanted knives that can be hidden beneath the skin, metal-plated knuckles, and a permanently loaded gun mounted on his forearm. All you've done is piss him off more and given him the tools to inflict more harm on the world.
In essence, would your parents be wrong? Depends what you mean by wrong. Their actions are rational in the sense that they are making logically consistent decisions based on prior beliefs and the facts of the matter, it's just basically a really stupid way to act. And to be clear, I extend my position to your case of the murderers and rapists. If we had an effective rehabilitative system in place that involved absolutely no punishment for their crime, but significantly reduced or completely eliminated the possibility of reoffending, then I would choose that option even though emotionally I would hate them for their crimes.
This is simply because I'd rather live in a world with less murders, rapes, and fucked up kids, than a world where I get to hit a child because I'm pissed off at him.