Should Women Be Beaten?

[Traditio]

if a woman is sexually abusing the couple's children, what would the proper punishment be if the husband didn't wish to break up the family?

I'm inclined to say that the husband has a positive obligation to turn his wife in to the proper civic authorities.

 

[annabenedetti]

I can think of several things a woman (or, conversely, a man) can do which is seriously contrary to their marital relationship. For example:

1. Attempting to seriously injure or kill one's spouse.
2. Committing adultery.
3. Intentionally burning down one's home.

You get the idea. If a woman intentionally burns down her and her husband's home, objectively speaking, does she deserve a beating? Presupposing that there are no mitigating circumstances, probably. Should her husband do it? I don't know. I don't venture to make a judgment on these matters. [Note, the genders are irrelevent. If the husband burns down the house intentionally, he probably deserves a beating.]

You're saying a woman should be beaten by her spouse for those three things? You have no business teaching an ethics class.

Thankfully, ethics doesn't involve shaking one's fist angrily and emotional outbursts. :idunno:

Get over yourself, I can see right through you.

 

[resurrected]

I'm inclined to say that the husband has a positive obligation to turn his wife in to the proper civic authorities.

that may have ramifications he wishes to avoid

 

[Traditio]

By the meaning of those terms as I understand them, I don't believe there are any circumstances by which any spouse has the right to punish the other in that manner.

I disagree with this. Presumably, you will grant that the State has the right to punish. If the State dispenses the right to punish to the paterfamilias (father of the household) for certain offenses, there may be circumstances in which administering corporal punishment is just.

 

[Traditio]

You're saying a woman should be beaten by her spouse for those three things?

I didn't say that. What I said is that, objectively speaking, the woman has a merit for punishment, and perhaps even corporal punishment. Whether the State or the spouse has the authority to administer the punishment is another issue.

You have no business teaching an ethics class.

Then indicate why I am in error. What are your reasons for disagreeing with me? If you have none, then I am at perfect liberty to write your opinions on water. :idunno:

 

[Traditio]

that may have ramifications he wishes to avoid

Even so, there may be positive civic obligations to which he is beholden. :idunno:

Presupposing, however, that the State claims no such obligation, and permits the paterfamilias (father of the household) to dispense punishments for such things...? I don't know the answer to that question.

 

[PureX]

It's an interesting question, though.

If we shouldn't use corporal punishment against a spouse, why is it then OK to use against our children?

And if it's viewed as a reasonable method of correction outside the home, why wouldn't it also be reasonable inside the home?

If a man can't beat a women, ever, can he beat a girl? Why?

 

[annabenedetti]

I didn't say that.

Then you tell me what a limited or rare reason would be for a man to beat a woman. I'm very interested to see what you say.

I can think of several things a woman (or, conversely, a man) can do which is seriously contrary to their marital relationship. For example:

1. Attempting to seriously injure or kill one's spouse.
2. Committing adultery.
3. Intentionally burning down one's home.

You get the idea. If a woman intentionally burns down her and her husband's home, objectively speaking, does she deserve a beating? Presupposing that there are no mitigating circumstances, probably.

 

[PureX]

I disagree with this. Presumably, you will grant that the State has the right to punish. If the State dispenses the right to punish to the paterfamilias (father of the household) for certain offenses, there may be circumstances in which administering corporal punishment is just.

You should understand that I don't believe in the concept of "punishment". I don't believe it's a valid concept regardless of the circumstances of the people involved. I think we need to view our conflicts pragmatically, and not emotionally. And we should redress behavior in that way.

 

[Traditio]

Quotes

Notice the very careful language that I used in my answer to your question. I didn't say: "The man should beat his wife in these circumstances. What I said was: "Here are circumstances which are gravely contrary to the marital relationship and objectively merit punishment on the part of the offender." In so many words.

I specifically indicated that I withhold judgment on whether or not a man should administer punishment to his wife in those cases.

But do pray tell, AB, why do you think that a woman doesn't deserve punishment in those cases?

 

[Traditio]

You should understand that I don't believe in the concept of "punishment". I don't believe it's a valid concept regardless of the circumstances of the people involved. I think we need to view our conflicts pragmatically, and not emotionally. And we should redress behavior in that way.

Traditionally, punishment is the objective merit for moral/legal offense. See ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2. Kant says about as much in the Critique of Practical Reason, namely, that punishment is the objective merit for the violation of moral law. In terms of ius (what is just), a moral offense carries a positive claim of ius for punishment for the offender. He has a right to be punished.

 

[annabenedetti]

Notice the very careful language that I used in my answer to your question. I didn't say: "The man should beat his wife in these circumstances. What I said was: "Here are circumstances which are gravely contrary to the marital relationship and objectively merit punishment on the part of the offender." In so many words.

You mean you used weasel words? You gave yourself an out by saying "probably?"

But do pray tell, AB, why do you think that a woman doesn't deserve punishment in those cases?

Does she deserve a beating, you mean? You answer me yes or no. That's it. No weasel words.

#1 and #3, There are all the laws on the books we need for legal recourse, no beating required.

#2, what punishment do you have in mind for adultery that would include corporal punishment?

Again, no weasel words. If you're going to argue for beating a woman, then show me how, without using weasel words.

 

[resurrected]

But do pray tell, AB, why do you think that a woman doesn't deserve punishment in those cases?

You mean you used weasel words? You gave yourself an out by saying "probably?"

Does she deserve a beating, you mean? You answer me yes or no. That's it. No weasel words.

#1 and #3, There are all the laws on the books we need for legal recourse, no beating required.

#2, what punishment do you have in mind for adultery that would include corporal punishment?

Again, no weasel words. If you're going to argue for beating a woman, then show me how, without using weasel words.

very slippery of you, the way you weaseled your way out of answering trad's question :chuckle:

 

[bybee]

my male professor was teaching us this morning about the menstrual cycle and the periodic hormonal changes associated

but he's not a woman

should he be allowed to teach this material?


who would silly little anna propose should be allowed to teach an ethics class? ghandi?

Your patronizing tone is abusive in and of itself. No thinking woman who posts on this site takes you seriously.

 

[resurrected]

Your patronizing tone is abusive in and of itself.

 

[Traditio]

You mean you used weasel words? You gave yourself an out by saying "probably?"

Does she deserve a beating, you mean? You answer me yes or no. That's it. No weasel words.

For all three of those offenses, she deserves to be punished. In abstracto, any number of punishments are conceivable, all of which are just, which can be carried out by any number of different agents.

I would like to remind you that, in the OT, the Law of Moses prescribed stoning for an adulteress. Unless you dare blaspheme and accuse God of injustice, then you must admit that it is potentially just for an entire community to stone an adulteress to death. In concreto, that is, in this or that existentially realized circumstance, it may not be the case that it is just to stone an adulteress, because various circumstances prevent it.

#1 and #3, There are all the laws on the books we need for legal recourse, no beating required.

That's why I withheld judgment. If the State reserves the authority to punish, then it's probably unjust for a husband to beat his wife in those circumstances (though, what other man would hold him accountable in a court of law if he did; the sheer anger/passion which would be invoked in such circumstances potentially could constitute a very significant mitigating set of circumstances to his guilt), since he doesn't have the authority to do so.

But suppose that there are circumstances in which the State dispenses the authority to punish in such circumstances to the paterfamilias. Then yes, I think it would be perfectly just for a man to beat his wife in such circumstances. She deserves punishment. Beating is a proportionate punishment (at least, if it is not too little, it is at least not too grave a punishment), and the paterfamilias would have the authority to carry it out. Therefore, it would be right for him to beat her.

#2, what punishment do you have in mind for adultery that would include corporal punishment?

The Law of Moses prescribed stoning. Given the fact that a God whose very name is Justice Itself prescribed this penalty, you can't argue that this is, in principle, out of the question. If the State permits a husband to beat his wife in such circumstances, then by all means, the husband, it seems to me, would have a right to do so.

 

[bybee]

Notice the very careful language that I used in my answer to your question. I didn't say: "The man should beat his wife in these circumstances. What I said was: "Here are circumstances which are gravely contrary to the marital relationship and objectively merit punishment on the part of the offender." In so many words.

I specifically indicated that I withhold judgment on whether or not a man should administer punishment to his wife in those cases.

But do pray tell, AB, why do you think that a woman doesn't deserve punishment in those cases?

What you did was "fling dung at the wall in hopes that some would stick"!
You have raised moronic, specious scenarios that are not worth a response!
You know nothing of life.

 

[Traditio]

Your patronizing tone is abusive in and of itself. No thinking woman who posts on this site takes you seriously.

Your loss. I think that SoD is clever. :idunno:

 

[bybee]

Your loss. I think that SoD is clever. :idunno:

What you think is quite irrelevant to cultured society.
You are a small clod and he is a large clod.

 

[PureX]

Traditionally, punishment is the objective merit for moral/legal offense. See ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2. Kant says about as much in the Critique of Practical Reason, namely, that punishment is the objective merit for the violation of moral law. In terms of ius (what is just), a moral offense carries a positive claim of ius for punishment for the offender. He has a right to be punished.

I don't agree that punishment is anyone's right. Any more than I'd agree that offensive aggression is anyone right. Both are wrong, yet both will occur. So I think we should deal with them, pragmatically. And I don't think punishment is particularly pragmatic. Redress is pragmatic. But inflicting pain or suffering is a dubious method of redress.