• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Fair" punishment

What is the best example of fair punishment for a week?


  • Total voters
    25
Sorry, but I wouldn't take away any toys. I'd spank both boys until they couldn't sit.

(I'm just kidding. Don't worry, I don't think spanking is a suitable punishment)

I would tailor my punishment to the particular boy. For example, one of the boys loves to play his musical instrument. I'd take that away. The other boy loves to play video games. Sorry, kid...the computer stays off.

Sorry, no changing the kids ;). see #96 two posts above for help on "imagining" two perfectly equal children.
 
I never considered this a complex question until recently. I wanted to put it into generic terms and see what kind of responses I got but do it in terms that was a little less loaded. This is largely a social science question regarding concepts like surplus, deprivation, etc.

This is simply an opinion poll. The boys are the same in each scenario, and you can assume that they misbehaved in the same manner. The number of toys never change. The only thing that changes is the cost of punishment. Choose the one you feel treats both boys with the same degree of punishment and maybe explain why.

Good question. I saw something once where a woman in Europe someplace got a $140,000 +/- speeding ticket because traffic tickets there are indexed to the violator's means. The theory is if you're rich a $100 fine is no deterrent but if you're not rich it is a deterrent. This lady was wealthy.

If the question is fairness, both boys losing all toys is probably the most fair. Or punish them with something that one does not live with an advantage like special chores, bland meals (tofu, rice, plain oatmeal, etc. and room temperature water,) time out, spankings.
 
Deprive both of all toys. This is the only effective negative reinforcement available. In terms of "punishment", the goal is to deprive pleasure in order to shape behavior. In terms of fairness, they receive the same punishment with total deprivation. Keep in mind "loss" and "punishment" are not equivalent terms. A greater loss isn't necessarily a greater punishment and a lesser loss isn't always less punishment. I would also comment that "fairness" is a secondary consideration in the effectiveness of punishment and should not be secondary in other contexts.

What makes zero toys the "same punishment". My explanation is that by doing all toys, you're effectively changing the units to TIME without toys. With that what is the inherent problem with toys as a unit of punishment?
 
Sorry, no changing the kids ;). see #96 two posts above for help on "imagining" two perfectly equal children.

Shrug...

Okay. I get it. You aren't talking about realism. You have a sterile equation.

In that case, I'll refer back to the spanking. That'll teach them not to disobey me.
 
What makes zero toys the "same punishment". My explanation is that by doing all toys, you're effectively changing the units to TIME without toys. With that what is the inherent problem with toys as a unit of punishment?

Give'em both a good whipping and be done with it.
 
I disagree. One of those options effectively changed the unit of punishment (toys) to something more equally held amongst the boys.

None of the options is "more equal" than the others. The 2 value options are in equal in value but unequal in % just as the 2 % options are equal in % but unequal in value.



I disagree. I understand people's need to have more realistic details, but that should be entirely unnecessary with abstract thinking. I'm an engineer and these are variables to me. The punishment is X. I don't need to know what X - because if X is the same on both sides of the equation, it simply cancels. For those that need a little more realism, I tell them both boys decided to play with their toys instead of doing homework. But that's all you get. You need to be able to imagine two completely equal boys in all ways accept for the number of toys. Is it realistic to imagine that you personally know two perfectly equal boys. Of course not, but that is not the focus - and the reality is that this abstract thinking parallels the aggregate very well. You might not be able to find two perfectly equal boys. But you could take two large groups of boys and do the exact same thing.

There is no real world application to a vague hypothetical. You might as well ask if killing 1 space alien if more ethical that killing 1 million space aliens, the answer doesnt matter because the scenario has no value. It doesnt matter what the answer I choose it because I can use the vagueness to fix the variables so that any answer I choose seems like the only fair answer.
 
Why is the one week not equally arbitrary - why not 3 days or a month? Would you advocate eliminating fines as an option, leaving only freedom deprivation (jail or house arrest) as a possible sentence? Fines act as a restitution to society, acting simply as a crime tax, while freedom deprivation has a cost to society as well as to the perp.

Time is just as arbitrary. The difference is that both kids have roughly the same amount of time. They do not have the same amount of toys.

This is simple mathematics to me. If we were to make a formula that measures deprivation, it would be deprived amount over the total available amount. With that you get two sets of equations:

Td / T1 = Td/ T2

this is toys deprived over toys available for both boys 1 and 2. These will never be equal since T1 does not equal T2

on the other hand you have

Hd / Ht = Hd / Ht

These equations are equal - it's the hours deprived over the total hours - both of these are the same. The key isn't that the punishment is arbitrary or not. Pointing out that it's arbitrary just points out the other side of the argument (establishing the punishment). The key is the units for the total amount must be equal between people in order for the punishment to me equal. You could pick an arbitrary punishment that you want - as long as it is based on something that both people have equally, the punishment will be (more) equal.
 
Good question. I saw something once where a woman in Europe someplace got a $140,000 +/- speeding ticket because traffic tickets there are indexed to the violator's means. The theory is if you're rich a $100 fine is no deterrent but if you're not rich it is a deterrent. This lady was wealthy.

If the question is fairness, both boys losing all toys is probably the most fair. Or punish them with something that one does not live with an advantage like special chores, bland meals (tofu, rice, plain oatmeal, etc. and room temperature water,) time out, spankings.

Lol - it's very ironic that you mention that. But because of the "class warfare" connotations I've been trying quite hard to keep this in terms of kids and toys.
 
None of the options is "more equal" than the others. The 2 value options are in equal in value but unequal in % just as the 2 % options are equal in % but unequal in value.





There is no real world application to a vague hypothetical. You might as well ask if killing 1 space alien if more ethical that killing 1 million space aliens, the answer doesnt matter because the scenario has no value. It doesnt matter what the answer I choose it because I can use the vagueness to fix the variables so that any answer I choose seems like the only fair answer.

Work backwards from my conversation with ttwt in #107 and I explain the arbitrary establishment of the punishment vs the relative punishment to the punished.
 
Time is just as arbitrary. The difference is that both kids have roughly the same amount of time. They do not have the same amount of toys.

This is simple mathematics to me. If we were to make a formula that measures deprivation, it would be deprived amount over the total available amount. With that you get two sets of equations:

Td / T1 = Td/ T2

this is toys deprived over toys available for both boys 1 and 2. These will never be equal since T1 does not equal T2

on the other hand you have

Hd / Ht = Hd / Ht

These equations are equal - it's the hours deprived over the total hours - both of these are the same. The key isn't that the punishment is arbitrary or not. Pointing out that it's arbitrary just points out the other side of the argument (establishing the punishment). The key is the units for the total amount must be equal between people in order for the punishment to me equal. You could pick an arbitrary punishment that you want - as long as it is based on something that both people have equally, the punishment will be (more) equal.

Except that mere vengeance is not the goal - the goal is changing behavior (getting the child to do their homework). Taking away time with toys may or may not act as an equal incentive to change behavior, regardless of the number of toys taken away.
 
None of the options is "more equal" than the others. The 2 value options are in equal in value but unequal in % just as the 2 % options are equal in % but unequal in value.





There is no real world application to a vague hypothetical. You might as well ask if killing 1 space alien if more ethical that killing 1 million space aliens, the answer doesnt matter because the scenario has no value. It doesnt matter what the answer I choose it because I can use the vagueness to fix the variables so that any answer I choose seems like the only fair answer.

Thanks. You gave the same answer I did...but you put it into terms an engineer would understand. I don't have the ability to do that.
 
I'm glad judges aren't engineers.
 
I know but I need to learn what exactly caused them to be punished.did they stop studying their lessons ? did they steal something from another person's bag ? did they insist on eating chocolate instead of brocoli? you see the type of punishment may change according to the context especially when these are kids.its not that simple if its about kids
As I am to understand, Tom and Tim committed the same "crime" .. But, the question is ,IMO, should ones wealth be a factor in the punishment ??
Strangely, I am with 90% of the people .
Speed , rich or poor ...lose your vehicle for one month
Screw over the people (France, Russia) ...lose your life
 
Why is the only "effective" option to remove all toys? I'm interested in the thought process that let people arrive there.

Even if equality isn't the goal, didn't we effectively achieve equality? By making both boys loose all toys we effectively changed the units to something that does relate equally to both boys - TIME away from toys.

No, The error is in the idea that any loss equals punishment. Not true.
 
What makes zero toys the "same punishment". My explanation is that by doing all toys, you're effectively changing the units to TIME without toys. With that what is the inherent problem with toys as a unit of punishment?

Again, Loss does not equal punishment. Deprivation does. Toys have no inherent value, 10 toys could mean less to one boy than 1 toy to another, therefore there is no objective unit value. Convert the question to currency (earned), and apply to free adults and the question is answered differently.

Zero toys is the same punishment because it is measured by deprivation (time without toys) not by unit loss (value of items).
 
But can you quantify the "obviousness" of that choice. That's the part I'm interested in - looking at the subconscious logic instead of just treating it as a gut feeling.
The purpose of temporarily removing a child's toy is to punish them.It isn't really a punishment if the child has an alternative.
 
As I am to understand, Tom and Tim committed the same "crime" .. But, the question is ,IMO, should ones wealth be a factor in the punishment ??
Strangely, I am with 90% of the people .
Speed , rich or poor ...lose your vehicle for one month
Screw over the people (France, Russia) ...lose your life
if I have nothing there is nothing to lose.lets distribute our wealth to the others
 
Except that mere vengeance is not the goal - the goal is changing behavior (getting the child to do their homework). Taking away time with toys may or may not act as an equal incentive to change behavior, regardless of the number of toys taken away.

I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Zero toys is the same punishment because it is measured by deprivation (time without toys) not by unit loss (value of items).

I'm not sure how this is different from what I said. Units do not imply value. Hours is a unit of time.

Again, Loss does not equal punishment. Deprivation does. Toys have no inherent value, 10 toys could mean less to one boy than 1 toy to another, therefore there is no objective unit value.
You're right there's no objective unit value with toys - that's why we use time instead, no?

Convert the question to currency (earned), and apply to free adults and the question is answered differently.

If this was an analogy, why do you see it as a failed analogy?
 
I'm not sure what your point is.

How many toys must be taken away, and for how long, in order to get a given lazy child to do their homework?

A "fair" punishment is the least which is required to accomplish the desired result. If that varies based on the individual then so be it, thus parents have great flexibility and the advantage of knowing their children well, yet we have a constitution that requires equal treatment of the law which means that our judicial system is basically unable to be "fair".
 
Last edited:
You remove all toys, because the punishment is that you are denying them the pleasure of playing with toys.

Removing some toys only limited the pleasure without stopping it nullifying the message, while leaving one with toys and 1 without demonstrates favoritism.

It's similar to the old saying about how cutting off one finger sends a stronger message than injuring all five fingers.
 
The minimum required to change behavior for each boy.
 
As I am to understand, Tom and Tim committed the same "crime" .. But, the question is ,IMO, should ones wealth be a factor in the punishment ??
Strangely, I am with 90% of the people .
Speed , rich or poor ...lose your vehicle for one month
Screw over the people (France, Russia) ...lose your life

To me it's not "factoring in" wealth. It's determining if the unit of punishment is bore (more) equally. If the unit varies wildly between people, it's punishment varies just as wildly, and that should be a consideration. We could use a percentage of that disparate unit. I find it odd that in some contexts people find that to be equal, but not in others (taxes for example). But it's NOT a requirement to make that unit work. If you can't make it fair, than "factor out"/remove that unit as an option for punishment all together and end the argument right there.
 
Back
Top Bottom