What’s Your Line?
Many posts ago (“And Now for Something Completely Different”), Rick commented that each person has a line he won’t cross. Do I? This was an interesting challenge for me since I also wrote “Shades of Gray,” suggesting that I don’t see topics in black and white as I did when I was younger. But do I have some absolutes? Any lines I would never cross? Well, yes, apparently; one popped up the other day during a conversation with my 5-year-old.
I need to preface this post: this is about my on-going meditations on lines I won’t cross. This isn’t about lines you won’t cross. I recognize there are very reasonable people who will disagree with me on this particular topic, and that’s OK.
Several days ago, seemingly out of the blue, my daughter asked, “You’d never spank me, would you? Neither would Daddy.” I replied, “No, we wouldn’t. But other people spank.”
And other people are trying to stop them. Just that day I read that California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View), had been trying to outlaw spanking in California for children 4 and under. She did not receive support for this initiative, so she presented a new bill that would “criminalize parental discipline involving a closed fist, belt, electrical cord, shoe or other objects.”
These two incidents got me thinking. Is that a line I wouldn’t cross? Would I ever spank a child?
Son of a gun…we have an absolute here. I never would spank a child; I don’t think children should be spanked. I don’t consider a sharp swat on the bottom child abuse, but I think there are other effective methods that don’t carry potential negative associations.
The negatives? Children depend upon us to protect them…how do we reconcile that with hitting them? We teach kids not to hit others, but spanking shows that someone bigger and in charge can hit. What kind of message does that send?
When I was getting my master’s degree, I had one adjunct professor who was superintendent of a local school district. Prior to that she was assistant superintendent for a large city school district in the south where corporal punishment was legal. Part of her responsibility was to mete out the paddling, so she was comfortable with the procedure. As she related her experiences with spanking, she became personal: she was driving one day with her two daughters in the back seat. One hit the other, and our professor said she turned around and smacked the wrongdoer. In relating this story, she never saw the irony of “I’m hitting her to teach her to not hit her sister.”
Her anger showed as she related this anecdote. Many times I’ve either heard about or witnessed spanking, and the parent was irritated. The punishment was not delivered in a thoughtful, deliberate way; it was an angry reaction. Is that a model we want to present?
I’ll admit I’m blessed with a tremendously easy-going child. Other than a few times when she’s been possessed by the devil, we can talk to her and reason with her. I know that there are a lot of challenging kids out there. I just took my daughter and her two cousins to a busy museum. Her younger cousin is just four, and, like many boys that age, he’s very impulsive. VERY. It didn’t take long until I took my eyes off him for a second, and off he wandered. We quickly located the escapee, and I gave him a short and meaningful lecture with the accompanying finger wag and stern tone. After that, he stuck closer, and I kept my eyes trained on that boy (hardly blinking!).
I was an elementary school teacher for 15 years in a state where corporal punishment is illegal. I had my share of aggressive students, emotionally disturbed students, and defiant students. Spanking was not an option, yet, for the most part, our classroom environment was happy and energetic. I realize that after 6 hours they went home; I didn’t have to deal on weekends or nights, but I was concerned with 25 other children at the same time.
When I asked my daughter her views on spanking, she said, “It’s not right to hit a kid because he or she* did something wrong. Especially if you’re bigger.” Well, that’s it in a nutshell. That’s one of the lines I won’t cross, a moral absolute for me. There are probably others, and I may bring them to this forum as I uncover them. So what about you? Do you have a moral absolute? What line won’t you cross?
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
**She really did say “he or she;” she simply won’t accept the generic “he,” and I won’t let her use “they” for singular nouns.
April 13th, 2007 11:37
When I was a kid, I used to go into the woods behind our house. I wasn’t supposed to go past a certain point, but of course I did. I never got lost; I knew exactly where I was and I felt safe. But one day, my friend and I were back there, and through the trees we heard my mother’s voice. We started running back to the treeline. She was standing there, calling my name, and apparently had been calling my name for a few minutes. She was standing there, with a leather belt in her hand.
She hollared at me about going too far back, not being able to hear her, etc., and as we walked back to the house (it was a big back yard), she whipped the back of my knees with the belt. That was the longest walk of my life.
I know, looking back, that she was scared. Even though I felt safe in the woods, my parents knew that teenagers and god knows who else used to party back there. They were afraid for my safety, and I blatently ignored their warnings. Why did I ignore them? Because it was never explained WHY it was dangerous. I was very naive as a kid and had no idea that other people could hurt me, or would want to. It never ocurred to me, and why would it, that my parents didn’t want me back there because of dangerous strangers. As far as I was concerned, I knew those woods like the back of my hand and I was safe.
The moral of the story: instead of the instant lashing out response, I suggest that a frustrated parent explain the whyfores and wheretos to their child. Children aren’t dumb and if you at least give them a framework for understanding why something is wrong or forbidden, they are more likely to do the right thing. That’s not to say that it will always guarantee good behavior, but it is a much better place to start.
Saying NO and then following it up with physical punishment doesn’t teach a child anything.
April 13th, 2007 11:46
Sorry, Sus, I didn’t actually answer your question, which wasn’t about corporal punishment.
I would have to agree with you that that IS a line I wouldn’t cross. But then, I don’t have a child of my own so it’s all theoretical for me at this point.
Another uncrossable moral line for me:
No cheating. Ever. On anything. Maybe it’s the left-over Catholic guilt, but I can’t even cheat on a game of Boggle. It’s just not possible! I have a sense of cheating myself more than others, and it nags me until I come clean. The last time I cheated on anything was French homework in college. I felt really crappy about myself for 1. not being able to read French and 2. cheating to pass the class. In fact I never did come clean, but I also never took another French class.
April 13th, 2007 15:15
I wish I had more bright lines in my life, but I feel like I have crossed most every boundary: some intentionally, some not. Sometimes I have crossed proudly with a brass band blowing, sometimes slinking in shame and hoping no one noticed. For me the one exception I have found is my professional ethics. As an attorney, crossing that line could (would or should) leave me without a license to practice and that’s just not a place I want to be in today’s economy. So I have not, even at the cost of confronting an employer and risking my position. There are things I just won’t do.
As a subsidiary question: If you have crossed line once, but would never again is it a moral absolute? I can say that for me having crossed some boundaries once has been enough to burn me so thouroughly that the line is bright enough now to see, and I won’t go back there. Ever. Do those count as moral absolutes now for me? If so, have we not proven that moral absolutes can shift over time? If they do are they absolute?
April 13th, 2007 16:51
Hi Todd-
Welcome to BraveHumans.
Interesting observation about professional ethics. Certainly there are people in all lines of work that would skimp on those for many reasons: e.g., money, laziness, fear of confrontation… I believe those people diminish professions…I know I feel that way about my field, education.
REALLY interesting question about new boundaries. I would hope that human experiences would affect everyone like that to some degree…we learn. But do they now count as new absolutes…hhhmmm…I think you make a good point that if they shift, perhaps they are not absolute. I’d be tempted to give those new lines a different label…but I’m not absolutely sure about that.
Susan
April 13th, 2007 16:55
Hi Eleana-
I’m interested in your point about cheating yourself. I have some thoughts as to what that’d mean, but I really try not to make assumptions….I find they are so often wrong. Could you elucidate, please?
I’ll play poker (or Boggle, or Scrabble) with you anytime!
Susan
April 13th, 2007 16:57
Elena-
Sorry about misspelling your name. I really know how to spell it; that was just a typo. People are always misspelling my poor daughter’s name (why did we do that to her?), so I try to be careful about that.
Susan
April 14th, 2007 09:40
Susan,
No problems (about the name misspelling). Typos happen.
As to the cheating myself business: I thought about this again last night when I was playing Text Twist on the computer (instead of sleeping). I really really HATE to hit the button that says “Give Up?” I only do it if I’ve been plugging away at a puzzle and have one last word that just wont’ come together. As soon as I see the word I feel like a moron for not having gotten it myself.
It’s like that with cheating-IOW it’s a perfectionist thing. I need to be able to do it myself or it doesn’t count. If I haven’t pushed myself to figure it out or do it myself, I don’t feel right looking for the easy way out.
I realize that’s not the most moral of reasons why not to cheat. I’m not supposed to cheat because it’s not fair to the other players, but that’s not the main reason why I don’t cheat. I suppose I wouldn’t want to make someone else unhappy by cheating, but again - not making someone unhappy is different from “it’s not fair.”
I suppose that’s “doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?”
I’m not so hot on poker, but Scrabble, Boggle, Upwards, and backgammon I love. Also Pente and Euchre.
April 14th, 2007 16:05
I don’t think so, Todd. I think that a “moral absolute” and “a line I won’t cross” isn’t necessarily the same thing. There are lots of lines I have not and will never (read: intend to ever) cross, in my work in the mental health field. Those are behaviors that, of themselves, don’t necessarily say anything about the moral imperatives that drive them.
That said, crossing those lines doesn’t mean those imperatives are no longer absolute (at least the way I define “moral absolutes”), it just means I’ve violated them. How do you define a moral absolute: as a line drawn in the sand or etched in concrete? You could cross either line at will. Crossing the latter one probably says more about you (for good or for ill) than the absolute.
April 15th, 2007 19:28
Hi Elena-
Thanks for the clarification. It’s not exactly what I was imagining, but I don’t think you should criticize yourself…for whatever reason, your actions are “the right thing.” I personally find intentions less important than behavior. Not that it wouldn’t be lovely for our moral intentions to always be responsible for our moral actions…but the title of this site is Brave HUMANS…so that’s just not always going to be the case.
And I don’t really play poker, either, but I’m good with Scrabble and backgammon….
Hi Don-
Intriguing reply to Todd, and, if I may, I’d like to ask you for a hypothetical example from your first paragraph? Like I said in reply to Elena’s post, I want to avoid assumptions. (Especially since this discussion is shifting toward professions to which I have little exposure…)
Susan
April 15th, 2007 19:57
What makes the spanking of children such a thorny topic is that most people assume, wrongly, that there’s a single right answer. Susan rightly hints at the fact that what type of child a parent is dealing with can make a difference. That’s true, and it’s also true that the type of parent and the specific situation also matters. Finally, it’s not something to be done repeatedly or routinely, by any parent with any child.
Children need to know there are absolute wrongs, absolute lines they shouldn’t cross. They need to know who’s in charge, and that it’s the parent, not them. They also need to be told after being spanked that that was done not out of anger or for vengeance, but rather because they had done something so wrong and/or dangerous that it became necessary to deliver a very strong message at a very basic level that doing it comes at a painful price. They also need to be told they are loved and cared about, that it would be easier, in the short run, to let them get by with whatever they want to do.
Children are going to do wrong things, some of them dangerous wrong things. That’s part of growing up. They need to know that however big and strong, however smart and sneaky they think they’ve become, that there’s always someone bigger, stronger and in some cases smarter, who’s liable to come along and hold them to account for what they’ve done.
Young “adults” who never learned that lesson fill our penal institutions. Cops, courts, prisons and guards become the bigger, stronger, smarter authorities of last resort, which is a tragic outcome.
Having said all this, I wouldn’t have Susan or any parent who feels spanking is so wrong spank their child. If they can deliver the emphatic message that’s sometimes needed by other means, that’s fine. Neither will I condemn parents who spank now and then as being in the wrong.
As I said, everything depends on several factors.
April 15th, 2007 20:09
On the larger topic, I’m with Elena about cheating. I just don’t, not with games, not with taxes, not with other things.
If, as happened awhile back, a store clerk goes to give me change for a twenty when I had handed him a ten, I’ll tell him. I need my self-respect more than I need a few extra undeserved dollars. And besides, I’ve been a store clerk and know he could well be expected to make up the discrepancy out his modest pay. I don’t want that on my conscience.
April 16th, 2007 00:37
Susan,
Fair enough :)…
Here’s perhaps the clearest possible example: I will never, ever engage in any sort of sexual contact with any patient of the center in which I work. “Well, of course not, not if you had any morals,” you might think. And you would be right.
But, what sort of morals?
A morality focused on legalism and liability? A belief in the sanctity of my marriage? A recognition of the power aspects of the therapeutic relationship? Simple compassion for not wanting to take advantage of someone vulnerable? All of the above? Maybe none of the above. Either way, there’s really no gleaning what my moral context is for that particular line except to say that unless it’s a matter of sheer apathy on my part, there must be one in there somewhere.
I think you hit on the heart of the matter when you distinguish, in your response to Elena, between INTENTIONS and BEHAVIOR–though for the purposes of this discussion, I don’t agree with the distinction. I think it’s ALL a question of behavior. Crossing the line, not crossing, or crossing back over are behaviors. Adopting an absolute, (i.e. drawing said line in the first place), holding to it, or discarding it are all, ultimately, behaviors. Take “Thou shalt not kill.” I can not kill, I can decide and accept that there may be situations or circumstances under which I’ll violate that absolute, or I can say, “Absolute, my foot.” I can kill and then recommit to not killing. How do any of these behaviors affect the absolute? I’d argue that they don’t.
April 16th, 2007 11:17
Hi Don-
I think I understand your point about behavior. You’re saying that making a choice, making a decision, holding a certain belief or position are all behaviors. If that’s correct, I guess I’m making the distinction between “internal” and “external” behaviors….between behaviors that others can see and behaviors that occur within our minds.
Functionally, I believe it’s (what I’ve just labeled) external behaviors that really matter to me…I don’t care as much what someone is thinking; I care about how s/he acts in the world.
Susan
April 16th, 2007 11:41
I’m not one for rules. In many ways, “laying down the law” for me is just begging to be crossed. I’m reminded of those talking car alarms. Stand too close, and they start declaring “Step Away From The Car!” As soon as a machine tells me I’m invading its personal space, I have a primal urge to kill it. I have a similar experience when going through security checkpoints at airports. I start running through the various ways that the system could be trumped.
Applying this to your idea of lines I would never cross, I don’t know that I have any. There are a lot of things I willfully don’t do: I don’t hit my child, I don’t cheat on my wife, etc. But my actions are not based upon a set of rules, or even laws. My actions are driven by an internal sense of rightness, which I think comes from a combination of empathy and knowledge.
Some people, I think, want rules in place to determine their behaviors. Perhaps they even need laws with consequences to keep them in line. I’m not one of those people. Perhaps that is what makes me a social liberal. I see no need for strict rules to govern my personal behavior, so I see no need to impose rules on other people. I wonder, do conservatives see things the other way around? Do they feel a need for rules in their own lives, and therefore see the need to impose them on society?
April 16th, 2007 12:21
Hi Brian-
You’re not one for rules? Never would have guessed. : )
I hope I didn’t imply that I talking about rules…I really am interested what individual, personal lines people have that they won’t cross. Spanking a child is not illegal; it’s something I won’t do because of personal beliefs.
Susan
April 16th, 2007 14:10
Brian,
I think I understand the distinction you’re trying to make between an external dogma and an internal sense of what’s right. But my question is: In the final analysis, what’s the difference? A decision not to hit your child or cheat on your wife is based on something–whether it’s your sense of right and wrong, Starfleet regulations, the fear of ending up in jail or on Dr. Phil, or whatever.
So, why aren’t those decisions lines?
Most of the ones I’ve encountered in my life are mixed with respect to the need for rules to guide their life. Except for the real oddities–the “You’re either with us or against us” kind–I don’t think a lot of these folks project their need for rules onto society. I think they believe society needs rules because they don’t take it as a given that most people even have an internal sense of what’s right. One could argue that if they’re projecting anything at all, it’s their internal knowledge of what they might do if they were allowed to get away with it.
April 16th, 2007 16:28
Don,
I agree our actions are tempered by a moral compass, whatever the source may be. I suppose i wouldn’t call them lines because they are fuzzy. There is a grayness to right and wrong, as I see it. If guidelines are absolute (the line you wouldn’t cross), then I would say there are no lines. If lines are defined as a limit to behavior within a typical range of situations, then yes, I have some pretty clear lines. I can name a lot of things I definitely wouldn’t do, but those aren’t the lines, they are well past the gray area.
April 16th, 2007 23:26
At last, someone’s officially thrown “right vs. wrong” into it. This is good, because the fact is that most people do bundle “right vs. wrong,” “lines I won’t cross,” and “moral absolutes” together. This usually creates some problems. People start worrying about how absolute an absolute can be. Some become reluctant to declare just where your lines are, or become overzealousness in doing so. When one bundles all three issues together, there aren’t a lot of attractive options. If there are “absolute” “rights and wrongs,” then “crossing the line” makes you a bastard and crossing back makes you a hypocrite. If there aren’t, then hell…why should anyone care?
Yikes!
My original response to Todd’s question, “Do those count as moral absolutes now for me?” was going to be this: “Assuming the question isn’t completely academic, I’d say that if they didn’t, then you probably wouldn’t be so worried about it.” But as I’ve said, to me it’s not all necessarily the same thing. And I know precisely nothing about what Todd’s circumstances might have been, where his lines are, or what his absolutes are.
I do know that my lines are not my absolutes. They’re derived from my absolutes. And I admit that there are times when I’ve found, “Whoops, I just crossed a line” and then had to deal with the internal or external consequences. But that’s just me…my definitions, my behaviors, and ultimately my responsibility.