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
