Introduction
The society tasks parents with the obligation of disciplining their children. This ensures that the children become morally upright adults in future. Disciplining children at an early age is more effective than disciplining children when they are much older. Failure to discipline children may have dire consequences. However, the means of disciplining children have been a source of heated debate. Various parties argue that spanking is an efficient form of disciplining children.
On the other hand, other parties argue that spanking children may do more harm than good. In the US, the black community has historically been a victim of discrimination. Therefore, the black community believes that a black child’s indiscipline may have dire consequences than that of a white child. Hence, parents should use all the necessary means to ensure that their children are well-behaved. Spanking is one of the means of disciplining children that parents may use (Patton para 3).
Spanking
Childhood mistreatment has dire consequences on the psychological development of a child. However, there is no clear understanding of the effects of spanking on the psychological development of a child (Healy para 2).
Research conducted by two Canadian universities showed that adults who received physical punishment during their childhood, had a higher risk of suffering from personality disorders and substance abuse (Banks para 4). The research linked between two and seven percent of mental disorders to childhood physical punishment. The research concluded that parents should not use physical punishment to discipline their children regardless of their age (Healy para 3).
However, the research did not determine whether mental disorder may be the primary reason why parents spanked the children. Emotionally disturbed children may engage in mischievous activities, which may irritate their parents. This may make their parents spank them (Banks para 14). The parents may believe that spanking prevents the development of ill behaviors.
Generally, the black society believes that spanking children prevents them from various societal ills (Patton para 9). Therefore, parents believe that they are spanking their children as a means of offering love and support (McLoyd, Hill and Dodge 255). However, spanking may make children engage in the activities that parents loathe.
The black community’s has a controversial stand on physical punishment. Despite the fact that the NAACP opposes corporal punishment in schools, the organization supports physical punishment of children by their parents (Patton para 15). Therefore, it is ironical for the organization to support physical punishment in one setting and oppose it in a different setting. The organization should have one stand on physical punishment regardless of the setting.
Societal obligation to morality
According to Singer, it is the duty of everybody in the society to ensure that the society has acceptable moral standards. It is the duty of a morally upright society to strive to reduce the suffering of other people. Singer presents his argument by claiming that it is wrong for individuals within the society to die due to lack of food, shelter or medical care (Singer para 5). Everyone in the society should have access to these basic needs.
It is the duty of individuals within the society to prevent such deaths from occurring. However, in so doing, the society must not sacrifice something that is of comparable moral importance (Singer para 6). It is wrong for an individual to watch as a child drowns in a pond when the individual can prevent the death. The individual should prevent the child from drowning. This is despite the fact that this may make the clothes of the individual become muddy (Singer para 7).
According to Springer, it is the duty of the society to ensure that something bad does not happen. Springer argues that anybody who has the financial means of easing the suffering of other people should do so. Helping the poor is not charity; it is the duty of everyone in the society.
The society usually praises people who are charitable but does not condemn people who are not charitable. However, this should not be the case. According to Springer, the society should force people who are not charitable to feel guilty by condemning them (Singer para 15). This would encourage more people to be charitable. Thus, being charitable should a be a societal norm.
People usually condemn people who violate various societal norms. People who steal personal or public property may receive moral condemnation from the society. However, the society does not condemn people who indulge in luxury instead of helping the poor or victims of natural disasters. The society should condemn such people. Both failure to help poor and stealing, lead to suffering of the people concerned.
Therefore, the society should reserve equal moral condemnation to both thieves and people who do not give to charity (Singer para 18). The moral needs of the society usually determine the attitudes that a society may have towards certain actions. Therefore, one may argue that it is not vital to reduce the suffering of people in other societies. However, people should not prevent suffering only within their societies. People should also prevent the suffering of people in other societies (Singer para 19).
In alleviating suffering in the society, the major issue is the quantity that one should give. According to Singer, one may give until they reach the level of marginal utility. This is the level at which if one gives more, the individual will experience similar suffering. However, this denigrates the contributor of the aid to the level of the recepient of the aid (Singer para 21). Therefore, it is wrong to for people to give until they reach the level of marginal utility. This is because giving may cause harm to the individual or the dependents of the individual.
Conclusion
Therefore, using Singer’s argument, it is the duty of the society to ensure proper upbringing of children. In ensuring the proper upbringing of children, the society should not sacrifice something that is of equal moral importance.
Therefore, the society should ensure that parents bring up their children well. However, in so doing, the society should not demean the authority of parents, such that children are no longer respectful to the parents. Failure to spank children does not demean the authority of the children. However, spanking may have long term effects on the children.
Therefore, the society should not spank children at the expense of their future well-being. Spanking children may reduce the immorality of the children. However, spanking may sacrifice something of equal moral importance – the future psychological well-being of the children. Parents or guardians should use means of disciplining children are as effective or more effective than spanking.
Works Cited
Banks, Sandy. “Study fuels spanking debate.” LA Times, n.d. Print.
Healy, Michelle. “Spanking’s effects can linger.” USA Today, n.d. Print.
McLoyd, Vonnie C., Hill, Nancy E. and Dodge, Kenneth A. African American family life: Ecological and cultural diversity. Spring Street, NY: Guilford Press, 2005. Print.
Patton, Stacey. “Does the NAACP think it’s okay to hit your kids?” Chronicle of Higher Education, n.d. Print.
Singer, Peter. “Famine, affluence, and morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol.1 no. 3, 1972. Print.