elc501 sample of an argument and the written analysis for students

7/24/2019 ELC501 Sample of an Argument and the Written Analysis for Students

1/7

Sample of an Argument and the Written Analysis Based on It

Why You Shouldn't Spank Your Child

I

II

III

The idea is spreading. Sweden was the first to completely ban corporal punishment in

1!" and has since been followed by 1# other countries. Corporal punishment in schools

has been outlawed in 1$! states. The Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of

Childrenpro%ides a list of supporters. Its aims are endorsed by" among others" &IC()

and &(SC*.

There are %arious arguments from legal authority" including the +udgments of higher,le%el

courts" and the recommendations of &nited ations committees and their opinions on

treaty interpretation. -ut the moral arguments seem to boil down to two a rights,based

claim" and a conse/uence,based claim

0itting people %iolates their fundamental rights to respect for their physical integrity and

human dignity" as set forth in the &ni%ersal 2eclaration of uman 3ights and the

International Co%enant on Ci%il and 4olitical 3ights. Children are people too and e/ual

holders of human rights... Corporal punishment... has been found to be a threat to the

healthy de%elopment and welfare of children and their societies" and an ineffecti%e form of

discipline or control. Constructi%e" non,%iolent" child discipline is needed. It should be

formulated and applied in a manner that respects the human dignity and rights of the child

and understanding of child de%elopment.0 5 from asummaryof a &(SC* report dated

1# 6une 7$$#"Eliminating Corporal Punishment The Way Forward to Construtive

Child !isipline"

Information on possible conse/uences" and on parenting withoutcorporal punishment" is

a%ailable from theglobal initiative" from Wikipedia on corporal punishment and

on spanking" and from pri%ate sites such as http#$$www"orpun"om8

or http#$$www"nospan%"net$. -ut claims made against corporal punishment would include

It doesn't work. There is short,term compliance but less long,term obedience.

It escalates into further abuse" especially since the amount of force re/uired might ha%e
http://kruna.ca/text/unesco.pdfhttp://kruna.ca/text/unesco.pdfhttp://kruna.ca/text/unesco.pdfhttp://kruna.ca/text/unesco.pdf


2/7

I9

9

9I

9II

9III

to be increased o%er successi%e punishments.

It destroys trust and respect between children and parents8teachers.

It causes psychological problems in the child and in the adult the child becomes

subser%ience to authority or rebelliousness" resentfulness" aggression" depression" shyness

and inhibition" insecurity" mistrustfulness and feelings of being unlo%ed" lowered self,

esteem" generalised fear" stress and an:iety.

It correlates with higher rates of drug abuse" alcohol dependence" delin/uency and

crime" and %iolence. Corporal punishment teaches the acceptability of %iolence and

e:tends the cycle. Children who are hit grow up to strike their own children and spouses.

It's true" howe%er" that a correlation is not causation" and that there's no necessity about

these outcomes a child who is struck won't neessarily turn into a %icious adult.

So" it is claimed" there is room for corporal punishment being +ustifiable under some

circumstances. 3eplies to pro,corporal punishment arguments would include ;adapting

from theglobal initiativesite


3/7

I=

=

=I

=II

=III

=I9

It's ust a little slap.)irstly" the little slap still causes pain and is intended to do so.

4eople who are %iolent against women don't get away with arguing 0it was +ust a little

slap0. Secondly" there might be psychological damage without physical damage. Thirdly"

0minor0 punishment causes une:pected in+ury> children are small and fragile. 3uptured

eardrums" brain damage" and in+uries or death from falls are among recorded

conse/uences.

ow" what you make of these arguments will depend" of course" on a whole host of other

beliefs you might hold. )or instance" do you belie%e in human dignity and human rights"

or is all rights,talk 0nonsense on stilts0? @re you persuaded by the psychological

e%idence? @nd how effecti%e do you find alternati%e parenting techni/ues?

)or my part" I'd argue as follows.

What is the purpose of any punishment? You lock people up to directly pre%ent harm to

the community" to satisfy the community's bloodlust for retribution8re%enge"

to deter commission of similar crimes by the offender or by anyone else" and

to rehabilitate the offender.

-ut in any of these cases" punishment seems to stand in need of +ustification. That is"

when you inflict suffering or physical damage on a person" or limit their freedom" you're

doing something that" on the face of it" is wrong you need to +ustify why it's right after all.

In the case of corporal punishment" I would suggest" firstly" that e%idence is increasingly

against the efficacy of deterrence8rehabilitation" at least on my reading of it. This"

like global warming" is an empirical matter" and a matter of whose authority you listen to.

Secondly" corporal punishment does seem efficacious in short,term pre%ention" and" as I

ha%e already mentioned" no one would suggest that the possible negati%e effects are

inevitable;although it's also true that" at the time of punishment" you can ne%er be sure

that negati%es won't e%entuate


4/7

=9

ad%anced" for instance" by 2a%id -enatar.

Aastly" as to retribution8re%enge" I'd grant that this also is a possible defence. -ut I'd

suggest that" in a ci%iliBed society" the entire category should be consigned to the dustbin"

along with most other murderous impulses that e%olution has gi%en us and that linger with

us.

-y @drian

o%ember 7#th" 7$$

http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/arguments-against-corporal-punishment/

@ Critical @nalysis of the Di%en @rticle


5/7

In the article" EWhy You Shouldn't Spank Your ChildF" the author" @drian deals with the issue of

whether corporal punishment should be used to discipline children. e argues that corporal

punishment should not be used as a means to discipline children. Words such as outlawed"

bloodlust" murderous impulsesandsmall and fragilereflect bias language through which his tone

of disappro%al and concern is con%eyed as he attempts to con%ince parents" teachers and those

in%ol%ed in bringing up children about the negati%e impact that corporal punishment has on

children.

e begins his case by stating that there are legal and moral arguments against corporal

punishment" but elaborates only on the moral perspecti%e before presenting his own %iews on the

topic. e makes e:tensi%e reference to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of

Children website" and other sources such as a &(SC* report ;1# 6une" 7$$#< and

http#$$www"orpun"om& a resource for corporal punishment research that offer credibility to the

moral argument which centres on the infringement of the childrenGs rights and the negati%e

conse/uences of corporal punishment. owe%er" there is a gap in his reasoning as he does not

elaborate at all on the legal perspecti%e. Horeo%er" there is e%idence that he has referred to blogs

such as Wikipedia which are unreliable sources of information.

The claims made on moral grounds with respect to childrenGs rights are plausible as they state

that children should be treated with dignity as human beings" and that hitting them infringes on

their basic rights. There is a claim made for a constructi%e" non,%iolent form of child discipline

that recognises the rights of a child and understands child de%elopment. owe%er" he offers no

%iable alternati%e. Instead" he presents more claims that highlight the negati%e conse/uences of

corporal punishment" namely

It only ensures short,term obedience.

It deteriorates into abuse with the increasing need for repeated punishment that re/uires

more force. It erodes trust and respect between children and parents8teachers.

It causes psychological problems in children that will also affect them in the long term as

an adult.

a%ing said all this" the author immediately presents a counter,argument conceding that

corporal punishment will not necessarily result in the conse/uences mentioned earlier. e


6/7

accepts that a child EwonGt necessarily turn into a %icious adultF. In doing so" this argument

against corporal punishment is complete. *ther counter,arguments such as

Children need to be disciplined

4arents ha%e the right to strike their children

Children need to be smacked for safety

It's +ust a little slap

are deliberately worded so that they present corporal punishment in a negati%e light and are

subse/uently challenged. Some of these refutations may be correct but they lack %alidity as there

is no e:ternal support such as research findings. Therefore" they appear merely as the authorGs

opinions.

The author then presents three claims to support his own point of %iew on the issue. is first

claim that corporal punishment does not deter or rehabilitate a child echoes what has been

mentioned earlier. The increasing e%idence to support this claim" howe%er" is not pro%ided. e

simply states that its efficacy is as debatable as the global warming issue" and lea%es it to the

readers stating that acceptance of his %iew is a matter of which research they accept. The second

claim hints of the authorGs own lack of con%iction about the negati%e effects of corporal

punishment emerging in the future. The use of double negati%es suggests that the author has a few

mental reservations about the argument.e mentions an e:pert" 2a%id -enatar but does not present

his %iew. Aastly" he argues that corporal punishment should not be condoned by a ci%iliBed

society for the purpose of retribution8re%enge. o rational parent or teacher would consider this

option in administering corporal punishment.

The author generally appears to be inducti%e in his reasoning" as he pro%ides all the specific

support as to why corporal punishment is unacceptable and attempts to generaliBe" for instance"

claiming that any punishment needs +ustification to be administered and that acceptance of the

argument is based on oneGs beliefs or principles. 4aragraph =I9 presents an e:ample of inducti%e

reasoning.

In summary" the authorGs first and second arguments appear to contradict each other" thus

weakening the authorGs stand that corporal punishment should not be used as a means to

discipline children. is last argument that parents and teachers impose corporal punishment as a

means of retribution or re%enge is unacceptable. @lthough he managed to show some %alidity


7/7

and credibility in some of the earlier claims" his o%erall argument against corporal punishment is

weak and unsound due to lack of strong support.

751 words

!ote"

This is +ust one way of analysing the gi%en article. Students need to +ustify their interpretation

and analysis of a gi%en article with e:amples.

elc501 sample of an argument and the written analysis for students

Documents