If it is wrong to hit an adult (except in justifiable self-defense) why is it right to hit a child?

Answer 1

Wrong to hit an adult? Not according to the bible.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Answer 2

Because individuals adapt and react to different behaviors at different periods in their life, different standards are allowed.

Children are treated different than adults because their physical, psychological and social functionings are on a different level. Just as you wouldn't talk in simple words to your boss explaining your newest proposal (with lots of encouragement and gold stars and 'I am so proud of you'), so too wouldn't you go into minute technical details with your 6 year old as to how a goldfish's body breaks down after it dies, thus allowing it to float to the surface of the fish bowl.

The same goes with behavior. Because children's cognitive reasoning functions are not as developed, trying to explain to a child the metaphorical reasons why they shouldn't do soemthing (using logic and reason and such) are beyond their capabilities. A child's brain is developing a formula for discovering answers, even at the same time being incapable of realizing those answers. Playing the 'why' game is a good example: they keep asking why because each answer only brings up another question which is about all they are capable of understanding at that point: they can ask the question but they cannot grasp the answer.

Also, with children, an action more immediately and concretely explains to them that mommy/daddy is displeased. Where an adult's theoretical side is so developed that a 'rebuke' or displeasure can be expressed without violence, via subtlety, body language, or even humour (phew, didn't know this was 'bring an elephant to work' day), a child has not developed such capability.

A quick swat or two on the rump, hard enough to make the point but not repeated enough to cause confusion, especially if mommy or daddy don't do it that often, creates within the child the idea that this is REALLY bad, installing a connective web of actions and consequences that works better than all the theoretical arguements of Plato, Aristotle, and Dr. Phil combined. As children mature, the methods by which one can instruct them grow. Spanking, thus, ceases to be effective, since what is a spanking to a teenager compared to not being able to use the phone or car or have their friends over?

Answer 3

It is not right to "hit" a child, any more than it is right to "hit" an adult. Hitting connotates anger and a lack of self-discipline. That said, I do believe in spanking as a form of discipline for certain children of certain ages. Disciplining children should be tailored to their personality. Spanking has its place in disciplining a child, as do time outs, grounding, and explanations. Spanking as a form of discipline has a limitied shelf life. It works best on children ages 4-6. 2 and 3 year olds are too young to remember their behavior long term and the results of their behavior. 1 or 2 firm (not hard) spanks to stop a temper tantrum works at these ages, it gets their attention and helps them to get themselves back under control. Otherwise, if caught early enough, time outs work perfectly to help a toddler learn what not to do. 4-6 year olds are learning about the outside world and are learning to test boundaries. What can they get away with and how many times? Sometimes, no matter what you do and how many times you explain something, children this age will continue doing it because explanations or time outs are something to be endured for like, 2 minutes, until they are back out doing it again. Spanking (again, firm, not hard) lets these children know that you mean business and that there will be physical consequences for their actions. There is, at this age, a phsycological part to the spanking as well. A friend of mine once said that sitting in her room waiting for the spanking was the worst part of the whole ordeal. The spanking, in itself, didn't hurt too much, just stung her bum a bit for a minute. But waiting 10 minutes for her mom or dad to come to her room for the spanking was worse, then sitting there listening to them tell her, in detail, why they were spanking her and why the behavior was unacceptable just made the waiting longer. In the end, she was hurt more by the knowledge that she had disappointed her parents than she was by the spanking itself. I agreed wholeheartedly with that explanation. For 7 and 8 year olds, there are better ways to discipline most of the time. Children that age are becoming better aware of the rules of cause and effect. They are better able to understand reasoning and why some behaviors are not acceptable. Taking away priviledges works effectively. By the time a child is 9, spanking shouldn't be a necessary or viable form of discipline.
The idea that spanking results in a child thinking that hitting is ok is faulty. If done properly and consistently, spanking is a last resort for a program of discipline, and is usually done sparingly. I remember each time I was spanked as a child and why. I never got the impression from being spanked that randomly hitting another person was acceptable. Far from it. In fact, none of the people I know who were spanked the right way as children think hitting is acceptable. They are all well adjusted adults who are respectful of everyone around them. That is the point and outcome of a good, well tailored program of discipline.

Answer 4

There is basic difference between a child and an adult.

An adult is having a fully developed brain and knows very well the consequences of his acts, while a child doesn't know the consequences of his acts, as his brain is still developing.

A child doesn't always responds to reasoning, hence has to be hit some times to guide him to right path. Hitting a child shouldn't be construed to insult or harm him. It is always to guide him towards reasoning.

On the other hand, if an adult hits another adult, it clearly shows that the assault was made with some design and motive, knowing fully the out come of his act. If the victim was not responding to the reasoning, the hitter should have taken the help of law and should not have taken law in his hands.

Basing on this, the law has also provisioned different punishments for a juvenile and an adult, for the same crime.

Answer 5

It isn't always right for a parent to hit (spank) his/her child. The motivation for the action is extremely important and the way one goes about the action is also important. The motivation for spanking should never be rage or anger. The parent must maintain control of their emotions.

A parent's motivation in spanking a child must be out of love for the child. It is not a penal act (act of punishment), but a corrective act. The Biblical ethic of spanking children is to help direct and correct. This is most important in the younger years when you cannot reason with the child. Slowly as a child matures, they develop the ability to think through things. Actions/consequences etc. For example, if my child has been told not to touch a hot stove and he then proceeds to touch it, how should I deal with that? I need to firmly and lovingly correct him.

The other aspect to consider is disobedience puts a gap in the parental/child relationship. When a child disobeys, the child needs to be dealt with in a way that shows that disobedience is not accepted, but at the same time the child is not rejected. I think it is good and right for the parent after the act of correction to spend some "cuddle time" with their child to underscore that the love is the motivating factor.

I have also found that in homes where biblical discipline (spanking in the right way) is practiced, children are far more likely to respect and obey their parents, and parents are far less likely to abuse their children.

Some might say that sounds like an oxymoron. But if you firmly correct your child as briefly described above, and you are consistent, children obey sooner and the parent is not in a position of tolerating the wrong the child is doing until the "straw breaks the camel's back". The result is the parent lashes back in frustration and rage either verbally or physically.

I think the main mistake people make is that they assume that people are by nature good. But as a father of four wonderful children, I have never sat down with one of my children and said, "Listen closely, this is how you throw a tantrum..." or taught them how to hit, scratch, or bite when someone takes a toy from them, or how to stare mom or dad in the face and say "No!". No parent teaches their small child to lie or any of these other things, yet they all learn them, and without proper correction, they will not learn to choose right.

Answer 6

Who said it was right to hit a child? And what exactly do you mean by "hit"? That is a very broad term, so I hope you define it.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with spanking a child in certain cases. Routine spanking for everything is just silly, because it loses its effectiveness. It just becomes your way of punishing instead of your way of getting your point across. It also depends on the age. If the child is old enough to be reasoned with, then there's no reason to spank them.

However, a firm smack on the butt will get your point across a lot quicker than other methods of "reasoning" with a child at a certain developmental level, like your three year old keeps running out into the street. You give Susie a swat on her hiney and she'll learn pretty quickly that you're serious about her not running out into the street. If the child's life is in danger, a spank will get their attention a lot quicker than anything else, and I'm not talking about a full-force hit that you'd deliver to an adult. Kids don't need to be pummeled to get your point across if they're doing something that is putting them in physical danger. My parents spanked me when I was a kid, but only when they needed to get their point across - like running out into the street. Not only am I a perfectly well adjusted adult, but I have a great relationship with my parents and am very aware that a butt swat was far more effective than trying to explain to me when I was 4 why I wasn't allowed to follow my older sister to the neighbor's house across the street.

If you're talking about repeatedly beating a child with a stick or a belt, that's one thing. If you're talking about a tap on the rear when Jimmy reaches for the pot of boiling water on the stove to reinforce to him that you MEANT "Don't touch that," that is entirely another.

Blessed Yule!
)O(

Answer 7

According to the world today, it is never ok to hit a child, People are being put in jail all the time for things like this. A spanking is one thing but hitting should never take place, And hitting an adult may result in you getting your butt kicked! My advice is to not hit anyone!!!

Answer 8

I'm going to risk answering under the impression you are really asking.

Society recognizes that certain things may be done to children in order to properly educate them that would be innapropriate or criminal if done to an adult. Truency laws are an example. If such laws were passed for adults, they would be struck down as unlawful detainment.

The idea of spanking a child is that children lack reasoning skills that adults have. Therefore, in order to instill in small children proper behavior, often times for their own safety, one must use different techniques than in the instructing of adults. Children cannot understand complex reasoning, but pavlovian conditioning does work. If they assosciate a given behavior with an immediate negative consequence, they will no longer engage in that behavior.

In the case of some behaviors, touching a stove, for example; a smack is the lesser of two evils. It teaches them that reaching for the stove is painful, without the risk of infection and loss of range of motion allowing them to burn themselves might allow.

My parents used to potch me regularly, and I resented them horribly and vowed I'd never do the same to my children. After I was an adult, I saw the little monsters who's parents didn't potch them, and there's no comparison.

Answer 9

If an adult goes to put a key in an electrical socket, I'd hit his hand all the same as I would a child's. The adult, I'd give a stern, "You DUMB-@$$!" The child would be given a soft, "No no honey, we don't do that. That's a bad thing to do. It would hurt you."

Either way the result is the same -- I'm going to smack someone's hand with the intent to cause them significant pain, because their minds are too undeveloped for reason and I don't have enough time to reason through it with them. So I'm going to make sure that they have a clear negative consequence associated with that behavior.

Unfortunately, children do not have logically developed minds -- in fact, in most models of child development, logic and reason are not fully formed and developed prior to the teen years; and it seems just as it forms it vanishes under social influence of peers... but I digress. For some things, it's sufficient to do a time out or a talking to -- but what do you do when the child's language skills still aren't good enough for you to do such a thing? Time out may be a removal of positive reinforcement, but sometimes you need an active negative reinforcement to extinct a behavior.

Answer 10

It is not right to hit anyone. but spanking in the form of correction, out of love, not anger is a good thing. No one should ever hit children. Spanking done correctly should result in a well behaved child. That really never has to be spanked anymore.

Answer 11

Its not right to hit a child. I have never hit and never will hit my child or any one elses. Children learn what they live and if they live being spanked for their actions they will grow up to think it is okay to hit others if they do not like their actions. I certainly wouldnt ever want my children to associate me with any form of pain and that is the only thing spanking does is put the child in pain.