"Abuse: The intentional and malicious causing of physical and/or emotional harm or pain to another when such treatment is not justified or warranted
( Read more... )
I would define intent or "intentionally" by contrasting it with "accidentially" and isolating the ideas of willfulness and deliberateness.In trying to define "intent", we come to a very difficult part in this little exploration, and that is the question: "How do we deal with paternalism?"
This becomes difficult because the line between paternalistic conduct and abuse is blurry. So blurry, in fact, that people's personal definitions are often at odds with the ones manufactured by the courts. Depending on your definition of harm, causing harm for someone's "own good" may be a necessary part of the child-rearing process - but even there the operative difference between a slap on the hand and a blow to the head is uncomfortably subjective. In both cases you are hurting someone with the intent on teaching them a lesson. If we limit our definition of intent to "malice", we open the door for a great deal of real abuse to go unrecognized.
As I think on it, I think that adding a single term to my prior definition of abuse might allow it to navigate the paternalistic reef: "unwarranted". Abuse defined as "unwarranted, iterated, intentional harm" might cover all the things it needs to while still allowing for the necessary paternal actions. Moreover, if those paternal actions stray from the realm of helpful life lessons and become in any way cruel the unwarranted clause would kick in.
I'm also aware that people are going to disagree with what's warranted, what's intentional, and what's harmful, (Iteration has the luxury of being more objective in its definition.) but I think that can be overcome. I would likely trust five out of nine people to make the right decision in any given case where abuse was alleged.
Very very interesting, as well. This poses a lot of good questions about child/guardian abuse for certain. What about domestic/partner abuse? Think the paternal stuff still applies?
I'd say that in all but the most extreme cases the justification for any sort of paternal actions stops at the age of maturity. Perhaps something like denying a compulsive gambler access to money would pass muster, but I'm having a hard time coming up with anything else that doesn't cross the line into abuse. Certainly nothing physical, sexual, or emotional can be justified under the idea of paternalism in a domestic/partner relationship.
There's an element of responsibility floating around here, and I think it needs to be addressed. As parents, people are responsible for the care and upbringing of a child. They are entitled to a certain latitude in their decision making process as to what is best for said child. So long as the "harm" done is within reasonable limits people should be free to rear their young as they see fit.
For example, the decision regarding corporal punishment is one I'd leave to the parents. I've seen success with both approaches, and perhaps it depends on the individual child. Regardless, there is a limit to its acceptability.
Once that person reaches adulthood, the only person responsible for his/her care and conduct is his/herself. A domestic parter may feel that his/her significant other is deficient in any number of ways, but at no time does their relationship entitle him/her to the sort of rights parents have over their children.
This becomes difficult because the line between paternalistic conduct and abuse is blurry. So blurry, in fact, that people's personal definitions are often at odds with the ones manufactured by the courts. Depending on your definition of harm, causing harm for someone's "own good" may be a necessary part of the child-rearing process - but even there the operative difference between a slap on the hand and a blow to the head is uncomfortably subjective. In both cases you are hurting someone with the intent on teaching them a lesson. If we limit our definition of intent to "malice", we open the door for a great deal of real abuse to go unrecognized.
As I think on it, I think that adding a single term to my prior definition of abuse might allow it to navigate the paternalistic reef: "unwarranted". Abuse defined as "unwarranted, iterated, intentional harm" might cover all the things it needs to while still allowing for the necessary paternal actions. Moreover, if those paternal actions stray from the realm of helpful life lessons and become in any way cruel the unwarranted clause would kick in.
I'm also aware that people are going to disagree with what's warranted, what's intentional, and what's harmful, (Iteration has the luxury of being more objective in its definition.) but I think that can be overcome. I would likely trust five out of nine people to make the right decision in any given case where abuse was alleged.
Reply
Reply
There's an element of responsibility floating around here, and I think it needs to be addressed. As parents, people are responsible for the care and upbringing of a child. They are entitled to a certain latitude in their decision making process as to what is best for said child. So long as the "harm" done is within reasonable limits people should be free to rear their young as they see fit.
For example, the decision regarding corporal punishment is one I'd leave to the parents. I've seen success with both approaches, and perhaps it depends on the individual child. Regardless, there is a limit to its acceptability.
Once that person reaches adulthood, the only person responsible for his/her care and conduct is his/herself. A domestic parter may feel that his/her significant other is deficient in any number of ways, but at no time does their relationship entitle him/her to the sort of rights parents have over their children.
Reply
Leave a comment