pdog
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,969
- Reaction score
- 1,226
- Location
- Searching for answers.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Sorry, no changing the kids
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, no changing the kids. see #96 two posts above for help on "imagining" two perfectly equal children.
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?
I disagree. One of those options effectively changed the unit of punishment (toys) to something more equally held amongst the boys.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ??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
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.
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?
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.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.
if I have nothing there is nothing to lose.lets distribute our wealth to the othersAs 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
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.
No, The error is in the idea that any loss equals punishment. Not true.
Zero toys is the same punishment because it is measured by deprivation (time without toys) not by unit loss (value of items).
You're right there's no objective unit value with toys - that's why we use time instead, no?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.
I'm not sure what your point is.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?