The question was brought up in my philosophy class. Noone gave a complete answer.

If a child smashes a brick into the face of some other child [or anything else that someone could think of as bad], should we give the brick-face-smasher punishment or a hug?

Can't wait to read the replies.

Smash the brick right back at him. If karma doesn't do its job, do it yourself.

Kenneth-
Would the child continue to hit people with bricks if s/he receives a hug?

Does a negetive consequence, in this case, make the child understand not to hit people with bricks?

---------- Post added 10-08-2009 at 09:47 PM ----------

Doesn't our action (or reaction in this case) to the incident depend on the culpability of the child with the brick in his hand. Was this an accident, was it done in a fit of rage by a child with limited intelligence, and so on?

And why would we want to limit our disciplinary actions to either a hug/ or some harsh retribution if the results of our action is to prevent further bricks-in-the-faces-of-Others?

Doesn't our action (or reaction in this case) to the incident depend on the culpability of the child with the brick in his hand. Was this an accident, was it done in a fit of rage by a child with limited intelligence, and so on?

And why would we want to limit our disciplinary actions to either a hug/ or some harsh retribution if the results of our action is to prevent further bricks-in-the-faces-of-Others?

Doesn't our action (or reaction in this case) to the incident depend on the culpability of the child with the brick in his hand. Was this an accident, was it done in a fit of rage by a child with limited intelligence, and so on?

And why would we want to limit our disciplinary actions to either a hug/ or some harsh retribution if the results of our action is to prevent further bricks-in-the-faces-of-Others?

In any case, deterrence is not the only purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is-to punish.

Punishment for the sake of punishment? That seems unproductive. Shouldn't our punishments be prescribed so that they reduce the chances of further offense?

What could make punishment "appropriate" other than the punishment's utility?

And by what principle is a punishment deserved other than utility?

You say "Maybe... useful". Well, that would be utility.

To say punishment should be given because it is deserved is too obvious to require saying. But to say that punishment is not supposed to be productive, that punishment is not supposed to have utility, but that it must simply be deserved is quite another thing to say. If punishment is not given because it is productive, what other principle determines appropriate punishment.

You're missing the point and mincing my words: of course a punishment should be given because the punishment is deserved. Yet, you deny that punishment is deserved because of a punishment's utility.

Okay: if not utility, what makes a punishment deserved? By what principle should we punish?

It matters because if it is not useful, then the audience whom it was generated towards, the punishment, would actually encourage more people who deserve punishment. Someone who is hung jsut to make an example of is done so by, usually, cruel and inhuman governments whose purposes and leaders were selfish and sadistic, them themselves deserving of punishments, but unable to acquire the learning experience from the punishment. To punish for punishment's sake, is a act that actually devolves the human morality. It becomes an issue of whether the issuer of the punishment, is in fact stable mentally. [Not saying you are keenethamy.]