Hi
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A child needs to be taught respect and investment in good
> behavior. Spanking and other corporal punishment, even if
> people survive such treatment and grow up not to be deviants,
> drug addicts and psycho-killers, teaches people to obey the
> "law" not because they are respect it and are invested in good
> behavior, but to avoid further punishment. It is disrespectful
> and shallow morality, which can certainly exist below the
> surface of a seemingly well-ordered social presentation. The
> "evidence" in this case may only skim the surface.
But wouldn't it be possible to consider scenarios where an
absolute moral conviction _should_ be rejected on the basis of
evidence? What _if_ (please note the _hypothetical_) evidence
showed convincingly that some people _did_ grow up to be
psycho-killers without aversive physical consequences for their
early deviant behaviours (e.g., torturing animals)? Would you
still maintain that a moral dictate should take preference? Or
what about Lovaas's use of aversive consequences to control the
self-injurious behaviour of autistic children?
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
