Slapping Flashcards
Notice the flaws in the "Slapping" text.
Until very recently, almost everyone – especially parents – agreed that it was perfectly acceptable for parents to slap their children, but children must never hurt a parent. We now realise that previous generations got this the wrong way round. It is quite right that many countries have introduced laws forbidding parents to hit their children.
Is this an example of inconsistency or a straw man?
It is inconsistency. Is suggests it would be okay for children to hit parents. However, this isn’t supported anywhere in the rest of the argument.
What parents do influences their children far more than what they say. Very few parents want to teach their children that might is right or that the way to win an argument is to commit violence on your opponent; but if they slap their children, that is the message which will be learned. It is therefore far better to teach children by example to resolve disputes by means of reason, discussion and negotiation.
What is it assuming about children when they are violent?
It is assuming that children’s violent actions are simply the same as common disputes or arguments gone wrong.
According to the 6th century philosopher Boethius, rationality is the defining quality of human beings, which separates us from the animals. Since even babies have this rational nature, they should be approached by means of reason, not fear. When children behave badly, parents should explain calmly what was wrong with what they have done, and once they understand they will not repeat it.
Is this an appeal to popularity, emotion or authority?
It is an appeal to authority - the philosopher is being used as an “authority” to define being human. There is more to being human than just being rational.
According to the 6th century philosopher Boethius, rationality is the defining quality of human beings, which separates us from the animals. Since even babies have this rational nature, they should be approached by means of reason, not fear. When children behave badly, parents should explain calmly what was wrong with what they have done, and once they understand they will not repeat it.
Is this equivocation or conflation?
It is equivocation. The two meanings of “rationality” here aren’t exactly the same. The first is about being able to reason. The second is about the ability of babies to learn. They certainly, however, don’t reason in the same way adults do!
If a child is violent towards another child or towards a parent, some parents believe that the appropriate response is to retaliate in the same way – inflicting a slap for a slap, a bite for a bite, a kick for a kick. But children will never learn how to express their anger in a civilized way if their parents do not set them an example. So adults should show that they have been hurt and appeal to the child’s love for them. Children do not really want to hurt their parent, and they need to learn to control their violent instincts.
Is this exaggeration or a generalisation?
It seems to be both doesn’t it? But probably to be an exaggeration it would be something like “There are no children anywhere who ever want to hurt their parents.” So, it is more a generalisation. There will be children who do want to harm their parents - some more so than others.
We all long for a world in which disputes between individuals and nations are settled peacefully. The only way to achieve this is by transforming individual persons, and the people who can do most towards this goal are parents.
Is this a false dichotomy or restriciting the options?
A false dichotomy is the same as the “either/or” fallacy. It is a type of restricting the options. Here the correct term is “restricting the options” because you are being limited to just one. There could easily be other people who could transform individuals.
