DaveDoggOwns:
Yeah, so let's not punish kids so they can do whatever they want
...
I don't understand the wisdom of this finding. Evil has no boundaries. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything about it.
I'm noticing a lot of derailment in this thread, and I had a few thoughts that might be of some relevance...
I think it might be useful if we try to be more specific in what we're actually saying in the words punishment, evil, and so on. If we define punishment as the appropriate response to crime, then lack of punishment is necessarily overly lenient, right? But if we instead define punishment as a negative response to any behavior, i.e. physical punishment for stepping on a crack on the sidewalk, then it becomes clear that not punishing the offender is not necessarily wrong per se, and it can even be virtuous to refrain from punishing a non-crime. In the context of the experiment, there is nothing virtuous in the commandment to the child to not to look at a toy. It's an arbitrary rule, and the children seem to realize without much deliberation that the rule is nonsense, and if asked I would guess that very few of them would say they felt any guilt about breaking the rule.
Then there is the lying. I'm reminded of Rothbard on this, when he distinguishes the moral from the legal, legal here being used not to refer to arbitrary State edicts but nearly universal elements of common law. Isn't it interesting how natural law libertarians tend to agree that lying is immoral, but few would suggest that it be a crime? Because it isn't an act of aggression, i.e. the child is committing no aggression in the experiment. To speak of punishing the child for it is entirely inappropriate. It's akin to the randomness of religion in which children are punished for culturally variable sins like eating pork or wearing the wrong hat in the same degree of seriousness as for hurting others or stealing, which perverts the child's sense of virtue.
That's what I came to mind as I read along, in the first hostile response to this thread and then your own (not to associate yours with the other, I'm only saying that both posts gave me similar thoughts). The distinction between crimes of aggression and unjust rules is a significant one. The dichotomy of punishment versus lenience seems to me to be a false one, as there is no virtue in either. Rather, it is what is punished or forgiven that matters. I would think poorly of a parent who punishes their child for not wearing a sweater they knitted for them, but similarly hold a negative opinion of someone who forgives their sibling's murderer with no restitution paid or apology given.
And I believe that's the point being made here; unjust punishment erodes the healthy respect in children for justice. It's really easy to understand that when we see its large-scale implications. Heavily religious societies tend to have more arbitrary rules that are as brutally enforced as the more justified ones, like sanctions against rape and murder being held as equal in virtue to keeping the Sabbath or not shaving or any stupid sacred custom. Consequently, those societies tend towards higher rates of violent crime; the major factor is that institutionalized injustice breeds disrespect and intolerance for all authority, including the elements of true justice. You get a kind of neo-nihilism in criminals who see no meaningful difference between smoking crack and killing a baby; they're both just rules enforced by a bigger, badder bully. On the other hand, a child who is only taught good rules like 'don't hit', 'don't steal', et cetera, will learn the utility of those rules, as not becoming an aggressor (and thus being ostracized or violently defended against), and also as a victim by also having the same rights to not being hit or stolen from.