Ethics: Children and Punishment

My chosen task is the Jeremy case study, which I will discuss and evaluate using different ethical viewpoints. Firstly, from a contextualism point of view, the teacher’s decision not to punish Phillip for punching Jeremy can be seen as being justifiable. This is because the context of the incident was that Jeremy had been provoking Phillip to the point that Phillip acted in a way that is described as being out of character. As Jeremy is known as a pupil that causes low level disruption, it can be argued that Phillip’s retaliation was actually in everyone’s best interest. It is, obviously, hard to justify one child hitting another; however the fact that Jeremy continued quietly with his work does suggest that the punch either did not hurt that badly or even that he felt that he deserved to be hit. Furthermore, the teacher can be seen as being right to not act upon Phillip hitting Jeremy, as it was morally right. This links to Buzzelli and Johnston’s belief that “teaching itself involves moral action” and that “teachers are moral agents”. This adds with Homan who said that “ethics is the science of morality”. So, whilst taking these theories into account, the teacher’s lack of acknowledgment (of Phillip’s behaviour) can be seen as being ethical, as it was morally correct for the child who was being extremely provoked to retaliate. On the other hand, it can be debated that it is never morally correct to hit another person, no matter what the situation is. To this, it should be noted that everyone’s moral code is different and that, in this scenario, the teacher believing that Jeremy being hit on the shoulder is justifiable as it stopped him being a disruption, cannot be seen as being irrefutably right or wrong. More generally, the co...

... middle of paper ...

...er, in this time, a different pupil could provokingly punch Jeremy due to thinking that Phillip had not been punished.

The teacher’s lack of response to the situation could be seen as being justified, from a consequentialism point of view, as the end (Jeremy continuing quietly with his work) justifies the means (Phillip punching Jeremy). However, the negative consequences of other pupils perhaps acknowledging that Phillip was not punished for punching Jeremy (creating an idea that they can punch anyone who provokes them) could suggest otherwise. In addition, the same could be said for the teacher not intervening at all, not even when the disruption arose. Had the teacher intervened, it would have (arguably) prevented the situation, but (at the same time) it would’ve also meant giving Jeremy the attention that he, perhaps, desires; as well as disrupting entire class.