A collective approach to smacking children

The fact that smacking children is part of our culture provides no justification for the practice. To the contrary, if smacking is wrong the tolerance which we as a community have shown towards it would be cause for nationwide regret.

In evaluating the legitimacy of smacking it is, however, crucial to keep in mind the perspective of the parent. Adults too have moral standing. This is something that children if they were properly informed would enthusiastically endorse. Children grow to be adults and it does them a disservice to entrench norms that will make their lives more difficult when it comes time for them to raise their children.

Harm comes in a variety of forms. And sometimes the, albeit, unintentional harm inflicted by persistently disobedient children on the psyche of a parent may in fact be greater than the sting of a behaviour modifying smack on the bottom. This is the strongest argument in support of smacking.

But does it outweigh the reasons against smacking? There is no clear answer and it is for this reason that smacking is such a controversial issue. Both sides of the argument have merit, but neither can deliver a know-out blow.

Yet, this doesn’t mean that we have to permanently live in a moral fog when it comes to smacking. Now that the moral framework has been laid, we simply need to prevail on science to overcome further hyperbole and conjecture.

To this end, we need reliable wide-ranging objective data on the long-term effects on children of minor levels of chastisement. Data regarding the impact of serious assaults on children is useless. That is already illegal and will remain so.

If the research shows that children who are subjected to mild levels of smacking do not disproportionately experience psychological or behavioural problems, then smacking should remain permissible.

However, until such data is available the default position is that smacking is morally wrong. Smacking proponents have not rebutted the starting principles that we should avoid intentionally inflicting pain and that certain (physical) pain carries more weight than remoter forms of harm (in the form of parental distress).

Still, like all moral principles, the prohibition against smacking is not absolute. There are worse forms of physical harm than smacking and no kid is more important than the next. It follows that it is OK to smack where it is the only way to protect the child or another person from serious physical harm.

In the meantime, both sides of the smacking debate should stop abusing the rest of us with their hysterical tantrums - for them no amount of smacking would be too great.