John Stuart Mills’ Opinions on The Study of The Effects of Negative Parenting on a 5 Year Old Boy and The Associated Abuse: Physical, Emotional and Verbal

Bringing a child into this world is a choice many people choose to make, for the ones who, do parenting can bring out many characteristics they never knew they had. Although many parenting characteristics are positives, there are possibilities for negatives. The specific case I would like to highlight, was a 5-year-old boy being physically, emotionally, and verbally abused by his father. Our 5-year-old was playing inside the house when he accidentally kicked his ball into the living room TV, outraged his father popped his ball and continuously beat his son with a belt telling him that he is ungrateful and that he will never be able to forgive him. For the past two years these outrages have been occurring and they keep getting worse.

According to Immanuel Kant, we cannot predict consequences even if we foresee the outcomes. In this case, by the father continuously abusing his son, he is causing his son to become resentful not only toward him, but towards himself. He is teaching his son that in life if one does something wrong to punish them you need to emotional hurt them, he did this by popping his ball. As the abuse continues, this young boy could suffer more emotionally and end up forming acceptance issues as he ages. Seeing his dad as a bully, he could either make his abuse into a flaw by allowing himself to be bullied or use it negatively or become the bully himself. The worst part is, when his son has kids himself there is a possibility his father's actions can become his style of parenting as well.

On the other hand John, Stuart Mill would applaud his father for his excellent choice of parenting. According to Mill, we can predict the consequences, as long as the majority benefits it’s okay to proceed. In defense, by the father spanking his child it will teach him that what he was doing was wrong and that it was not okay. By disciplining the child to the point of mentally break down, it will make him listen to his father in the future. Mill would agree that the father was in no way wrong for the way he chose to teach his son a lesson. The father continues to gain the control of his child and keep him disciplined in as a well-mannered child. When the father told him that he would never forgive him, it made his son realize how important he needed to behave to gain back his dad's approval. In the end what the child did was wrong and he deserved what he got as punishment.

"Our actions give us a reputation, we can choose what we want to be," Aristotle once stated. As soon as the boy’s teachers begin to catch on, the father will be known as a child abuser. His mother could possibly build hate for his father and file for full custody. As soon as the father builds the title as a child abuser, anyone who crosses his path who has a child could take out there on frustration on him. As his son continues to grow into a young man his respect and love for his father will slowly disappear and his father will just become another faint memory. When the father chose to continuously beat his son for minor mistakes, he agreed to whatever consequences were to come in the future.

In conclusion, Mill was wrong in multiple was because although the father was benefiting in the moment, by the time the abuse reached its breaking points the father's reputation was ruined. In my opinion, I agree with Kant the most because not all cases are brought to attention and not everyone gains the title of an abuser. In any case of child abuse, the child is the one who most affected due to all the emotional, physical, or verbal abuse the endured. Although in some case it is okay to discipline you children, there is a certain limit a parent should range around and discipline should only be used in server cases.