EDF211/10

LECTURE EIGHT

ANALYTICAL ETHICS/META-ETHICS AND PUNISHMENT

META-ETHICS

This is a more critical level of the study of ethics. It goes beyond prescriptions and seeks deeper insights into the justifications of morality/values. This approach to the study of ethics is at the clarification of terms and statements that is the meaning of ethical terms and statements as used in ethics, both in the ordinary and academic sense. It is a form of linguistic analysis aimed at clarifying and validating. Advocates of liberty and freedom oppose any form of externally imposed discipline. They argue that:

               A person must be in to some degree free from external restraint.

               A person must exercise freedom of choice.

               Discipline is only admissible if it increases or widens or guarantees an individual great freedom of choice.

On the other hand, proponents of externally imposed discipline argue that discipline is justifiable or several reasons:

               Restores and preserves the natural authority of the teacher.

               To minimize or prevent disorderly behaviour which may interfere with the liberties and rights of others or even of their own.

               To help students/learners to be able to choose for themselves and hopefully to choose to accept the laws.

PUNISHMENT

The term punishment means the intentional and purposeful infliction of pain (of some kind) by a person in authority as a penalty for what the authority believes to be some wrong done by the offender. In a school, punishment may take various forms; corporal punishment, withdrawal of privileges and, imposition of sanctions and detentions.

Education implies the transmitting of knowledge skills by one who is an authority to those who are not. To enable this to take place, certain external conditions must be applied. It is generally expected that the student must be reasonably orderly and attentive, and the instructions of the teacher must be generally obeyed. As such, the teacher ought to operate as an authority in what he teaches and function in authority. The teacher is required to cultivate the right personality, have mastery of his teaching content and be conversant with class management in order to naturally elicit obedience and discipline in his learners. Whenever his/her authority is challenged, he/she may have to resort to punishment. Punishment would then be justified in the following ways:

            i)        As a means of restoring the position which existed before the offence took place.

            ii)      To prevent a repetition of the offence.

            iii)    To restore the teacher’s lost authority as a result of the learner’s disobedience.

            iv)   To cause the learner to learn something i.e. obedience or learning the content as a result of punishment.

Philosophical Justification of School Punishment

            i)                    Utilitarian theory: according to this theory, punishment is justified if it excludes a greater evil to the individual or society. In this case, punishment is not an end in itself. It is viewed as a means to a greater good. As such, it is aimed at producing good results, fame of the school etc. although punishment may look unpleasant, involving pain and humiliation; this is temporary compared to the good which it is likely to produce. This theory allows for pressure to be exerted on both the good (non offenders) and the offenders alike as long as good results can be obtained.

            ii)                  Retributive theory: it holds that wrong doing is blameworthy and that some forms of wrong doing should n..mm,mot only be blamed but that blame should be expressed through that infliction of pain. In this case, to punish is to repay (restitute) the wrong done. It holds that an individual should suffer for his mistake/offence. This view assumes that man is generally free and responsible for his actions. As such, one can be rationally and logically held responsible for wrongdoing. Punishment serves as a moral disapproval.

      a.        Retributive punishment should not be mistaken with revenge. Such confusion usually unleashes terror and violence upon the offender unproportionally.

      b.      The retributionist hopes that punishment makes the offender feel, through his/her suffering, the society’s vehement condemnation of his irresponsible act. It is also hoped that through this, the offender may feel condemned, accept the punishment as just, condemn him in sorrow, repent and start on a voluntary enterprise of self reform.

Criticism of the retributive theory

It may lead to communication breakdown between the offender and the person administering punishment i.e. when the offender feels that it is a personal attack or revenge by the punisher. This is often the case where no explanations are given before or after the act of punishment. It is impossible to inflict pain that is proportional to the offence. The suffering of the injured party cannot be given back to the offender in the same measure. The offender may cultivate resentment. In place of the expected sorrow and repentance, one may reserve anger and repetition. This theory therefore overlooks reassuring and prudence. The offender may have wronged by mistake or ignorance.

           

iii)            Deterrent theory: deterrent punishment aims at influencing people by some sort of fear so that they will not do/repeat the wrong. The theory holds that: inflict pain on or after the occasion of wrong doing. This will tend to condition the offender towards the avoidance of the offence in future. Deterrent punishment is necessary in schools if social order is to be maintained because:

               It deters others from breaking rules.

               It prevents others from a greater evil.

               It reforms the culprit eliciting better behaviour.

It is utilitarian because it aims at correction as well as bringing about a good life. However, only those who have willingly/voluntarily wronged should be punished. But those who genuinely committed offences out of ignorance should be treated otherwise. Deterrent punishment should aim at the understanding of the offender concerning the offence i.e. society’s approval and the urgent need to reform. It is a form of conditioning. In order to be administered effectively, the teacher should understand its effectiveness in application to different personality types.

DISCIPLINE

The term discipline originates from the Latin ‘discere’ meaning to learn or to conform to specific order. The concept of discipline in education may be defined as a relationship of submission or obedience to some sort of order. Discipline implies three distinctive meanings:

               The imposing by some persons on others of restraints backed by sanctions of some kind. Here, it refers to external control of a person’s restraint.

               It may mean self-discipline that consists of exercising one’s freedom of choice in which case one must be reasonably free from external restraint.

               It may mean the discipline that is freely accepted when one decides to put oneself under an order of some kind i.e. the order of religion or morality of an art or the discipline of an academic subject. This advocates for liberty and f