I was beat, my mother was beat as children and now, in my opinion, we are two very strong women that can always find a way to any situation. Since beating children is not allowed in this country I believe that is why American children are very rude and disrespectful, but in other countries, such as countries in Africa where it is not illegal to beat your children, I have not received anything, but respectfulness come from these children and I have been there on more than one account.
It depends on the kind of beating you do. If you're just beating the kid on the butt, It won't cause any lasting harms, it's good-willed, and it results in the child learning right/wrong. If beating a kid means attacking her, then no. But no beating at all is silly.
Some kids do. Some kids don't. Every kid is different some kids that whole sit them down and talk thing actually works. Others not a chance. Me personally I got in trouble so much that spankings no longer affected me. What did is when my parents made me write essays out of encyclopedias. But some kids do need a good spanking. Now I'm not saying grab your kid by the throat and break the table with them but a good whooping never hurt anybody. If it did then they recieved more than a whooping
As others on the other side argued, beating would leave emotional scars if not physical scars. It can also potentially make more kids aggressive. However, light beating, for example smacking him /her strongly with a pillow which I tried and could say it pains them for a few seconds then never felt. This should only be used when they have done the same to give them a small trial test of what happens when they get aggressive with other people. It could also be used with other ways such as grounding and loss of electronics to aid in the long run. I am definitely against "beating" as it is, but in some rare occurrences a light version of it can definitely be helpful. By light I mean truly light.
Okay, "beat" as the connotation of over and over, as if to seriously damage the child, no. But spanking, yes, if the punishment fits the crime. For example: if the kid is tired and talked back to his or her parent, probably not, just send the kid to bed. If the kid was being a bit squirmy, probably not. If the kid is hitting, throwing a fit, yeah, maybe, a little swat (at first), but not more than once or twice at once.
I disagree with "A good whooping never hurt anybody", however, because (although I won't do any research on it right now) I'm sure cases have reported seriously injuring a child due to "a good whooping".
All in all, like I said, punishment should fit the crime.
I happen to agree with discipline but not "beating". Spanking, yes. I have only been spanked twice and because of it I learned very early on to a. Respect my mother and b. To listen to my parents. I do no agree with the overuse of violence. Spanking is used to instill a value at a very early age so that they remember a distinctly bad connotation to a certain action. Using spanking or "beating" for everything is useless because the child expects a couple hits then nothing more. You have to use alternate ways of discipline. My parents used the classic sitting in the stairs and writing sentences for a hundred times. Now as a teen, my phone or Xbox is the first thing to disappear and returned upon correction of a bad action. So "beating", no. Spanking, swatting, smacking, yes.
A better solution supported by psychology is to discipline by taking something away. This is proven more effective in getting the child to correct their own behavior.
People who argue "I was beat and I turned out fine," that's not really a good answer because that argument is neglectful of the fact that there are other and potentially better solutions.
Also, beating your child can make him/her more aggressive. It makes the child fear the parent. If a parent hits or beats their child out of anger or frustration, think about the example this is setting for the child.
When using harsh physical punishments on a child, not only will they grow to hate and fear you but you may also traumatize them. Punishments in general are good to some extent, but physical violence is never a good idea. Multiple studies have shown that rewarding your child or simply taking something away from them are all you'd ever need to instill moral beliefs in them.
"Beating," however, is still very distinctive from "spanking," which I will always view as an acceptable form of discipline. It's important the two are not confused -- unfortunately, some insist on using the two terms interchangeably, which tends to give spanking a bad reputation and classifies those who use it as a form of discipline as "abusive."
The act of beating a child is emotionally and possibly physically scarring. It leaves children defiant, confused, and humiliated. There is also potential for the person doing the beating to end up doing this out of anger. It gives the person an unhealthy outlet, and could end up harming the child more than doing any good at all.
Allow me to start with a hypothetical (which might not really be hypothetical as many children have no doubt been through something similar): imagine that you have a child who was punished every time he did something wrong. Now he's in a bit of a mess; he'd hung around the wrong crowd (let's say a bunch of drug users) and now he's slipping into a drug addiction of sorts. He cannot tell his counselor, he doesn't feel comfortable talking about his predicament to folks he's not close to. Same with the teachers. His friends would see him as "uncool" if he tried to get clean. The only people left are his parents; but he's so afraid of them after a lifetime of punishment, that he can't tell them anything either. So now our hypothetical minor must suffer alone, and it will only get worse for him.
You see the point I'm trying to make here? Punishing a child only pushes the kid into a corner. People are always saying after a suicide or school shooting happens, "Where were the parents? He was suffering alone and he let it fester inside 'till he cracked." The parents were probably there, but the kid's not going to tell the parents about his problems. They are the last people he'd tell, he is too afraid of his parents to tell them about predicaments or big problems.
Children under the age of 18 are still learning and developing. To beat them for a mistake, would be ethically wrong. There are a variety of other ways to enforce obedience over your child including: grounding, removal of personal possessions, loss of electronics, etc. Beating is a punishment of the past, lets use more, less painful ways of enforcement.
Is there no other way, but to beat the child? Even with the purest intentions, a child should never be harmed. I would feel sad if ever (or whenever) I saw a parent beating eg. Spanking their kid/s, and at the same time I also feel disappointed to the parent. Knowing that a parent should be the #1 source of all care and love of a child
'Ethical' is defined by dictonary.Com as: pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
So whether beating your children is ethical or not would depend on your individual morals/principles to a large degree.
However, in terms of 'society and law' it is deemed unethical and unjust to beat children in many societies, especially in the West, and is illegal. This is because children are viewed as vulnerable and innocent and beating is viewed as harsh and cruel. In addition to that, many would argue that there are plenty of other ways to exercise discipline such as a growling, item confiscation, grounding etc.