What is the point if inflicting pain?

[Eulogy]

Pain is practically and unfortunately inevitable, even if it's just a stubbed toe. A cop who has to shoot or club a perp is doing his job, lions have to kill their prey, and rodents can get squashed.

But why cause unnecessary pain? What is to be gained from, what is ethical about smacking somebody or putting him in solitary confinement?

[SCRawl]

Pain is usually a by-product of some other process, rather than an end unto itself. The only way for the lion to eat that gazelle, as you mentioned in your example, is for the lion to first cause the gazelle a bunch of pain. But we aren't like lions in several respects; we can empathize with those whom we are about to inevitably cause pain, and so we may choose to minimize that pain.

But sometimes pain is the desired end, and sometimes just the threat of pain is enough. If I'm, say, a police officer on riot patrol, carrying a club and brandishing a shield, then part of what I'll be counting on is my ability to project the sense of "if you don't do as you're told you're going to get hurt, so get out of the way". Having a few dozen other guys just like me projecting that same message definitely helps get the job done. Torture is another obvious example of pain being at least the intermediate goal, assuming the torture in question is designed to elicit some other result (such as a confession). Of course, torture is considered to be cruel and inhuman treatment, and rightly so. It has been quite effective in the past to get people to behave a certain way, though, at least in the short term. Similarly for the "smacking around" thing, if A is beating up B, then the pain involved is either a means to an end (eg. A needs to make B submit for some reason, and in that process B will feel pain) or an end unto itself (eg. A wishes B to feel pain in order to reinforce A's dominance).

Then there's the whole sadistic subset to talk about, for those people who achieve satisfaction by causing other people pain. The pain is, in this case, both a means and an end.

You mentioned the solitary confinement issue, and while it is possible that locking someone up in a room by himself may be done primarily for the discomfort it will cause, it may also be purely incidental. If a prisoner is acting in a manner that is unsafe to himself or others, solitary confinement may be the only avenue available. It may also be intended to serve as a deterrent against future misbehaviour. Or the person making incarceration decisions may just be a sadistic bastard, or may perhaps be ignorant of the psychological implications of locking up a social animal such as a human without any other human contact.

[Formless]

I'm not sure what's being asked here, because the answer to the question as stated seems self-evident; unnecessary pain is... well, unnecessary. Unjustified, unethical. So I guess what's confusing me is, what kind of person is this question intended for, Eulogy? What sparked the question? What context is this thread supposed to fit into? The nature of crime and punishment? The use of torture? Or are you asking for an explanation rather than a justification for why some people inflict unnecessary pain on others?

[Eulogy]

I recall one member of SD.net talking about corporal punishment as a means of making a child feel the pain he did unto another person - if the small kid hit someone, he would hit the kid.

However, that was pretty much a substitute for empathy, and the pain wasn't the only consequence given; he would also ground the kid and let THAT be the punishment. The hitting was just a forced reality check, as it were.

Of course, I do not know if that is productive in the long run...

[Batman]

Not being a parent myself (no, Damian doesn't count) I can't speak from personal experience but from what I can tell it appears that yes, every once in a while doing something stupid does seem to be required so you getting hurt in the process tells you to recognize 'yeah, okay, maybe my parents had a point about not touching that'.
Nothing tells 'don't touch that, it's hot and you'll get hurt' like 'Says who?' 'By all means go ahead.'

[Spoonist]

I recall one member of SD.net talking about corporal punishment as a means of making a child feel the pain he did unto another person - if the small kid hit someone, he would hit the kid.

However, that was pretty much a substitute for empathy, and the pain wasn't the only consequence given; he would also ground the kid and let THAT be the punishment. The hitting was just a forced reality check, as it were.

Of course, I do not know if that is productive in the long run...

This is pretty much BS and unsupported by scientific study.
Instead kids who are hit for disceplin by their parents are more likely to hit other kids.

Anyone who has covered basic child psychology can reason out why its a bad idea to hit the kid in this situation.

[Highlord Laan]

I recall one member of SD.net talking about corporal punishment as a means of making a child feel the pain he did unto another person - if the small kid hit someone, he would hit the kid.

However, that was pretty much a substitute for empathy, and the pain wasn't the only consequence given; he would also ground the kid and let THAT be the punishment. The hitting was just a forced reality check, as it were.

Of course, I do not know if that is productive in the long run...

This is pretty much BS and unsupported by scientific study.
Instead kids who are hit for disceplin by their parents are more likely to hit other kids.

Anyone who has covered basic child psychology can reason out why its a bad idea to hit the kid in this situation.

Strange. I don't seem to remember either starting fights, hitting others or spoiling for violence as a kid, and neither did my siblings, friends, or anyone else I knew, and we got slapped more than once while growing up. Must be one of those "exception to the rule" things. Or the study was total bullshit.

[Akhlut]

Laan:the plural of anecdote is not data.

Anyway, as for the OP: unnecessary pain is usually a product of either neglect/apathy or malice.

For instance, let us consider factory farming. The way hogs are housed causes undue suffering to them by all accounts, thus they are experiencing unnecessary pain due to the way they are being raised. This is caused mainly by neglect and apathy. The producers of hogs for slaughter want a profit and the consumers of hogs are either ignorant of the conditions or don't consider that hogs have the capacity for suffering that would make factory farming unacceptable.

While, on the malice side of things, we have Dr. Mengele, who engaged in horrific human experimentation against Jews and gypsies because he rather enjoyed inflicting pain on them, mainly.

[Losonti Tokash]

Strange. I don't seem to remember either starting fights, hitting others or spoiling for violence as a kid, and neither did my siblings, friends, or anyone else I knew, and we got slapped more than once while growing up. Must be one of those "exception to the rule" things. Or the study was total bullshit.

Ah, yes. The classic "well I got the shit beaten out of me and I turned out fine!" You'll note the claim was that these kids are "more likely" to be violent, not "guaranteed." There's also the fact that the entire concept behind corporal punishment is flawed; you are certainly teaching the kid a lesson: that it's okay to hit people if you're bigger and stronger than they are.

[ArmorPierce]

I recall one member of SD.net talking about corporal punishment as a means of making a child feel the pain he did unto another person - if the small kid hit someone, he would hit the kid.

However, that was pretty much a substitute for empathy, and the pain wasn't the only consequence given; he would also ground the kid and let THAT be the punishment. The hitting was just a forced reality check, as it were.

Of course, I do not know if that is productive in the long run...

This is pretty much BS and unsupported by scientific study.
Instead kids who are hit for disceplin by their parents are more likely to hit other kids.

Anyone who has covered basic child psychology can reason out why its a bad idea to hit the kid in this situation.

Strange. I don't seem to remember either starting fights, hitting others or spoiling for violence as a kid, and neither did my siblings, friends, or anyone else I knew, and we got slapped more than once while growing up. Must be one of those "exception to the rule" things. Or the study was total bullshit.

People literally unable to make any type of distinction between levels of corporal punishment. It seems like some people don't believe that you can hit someone with a varying degree of strength. All those studies never make a distinction between someone who would get smacked as opposed to someone getting beaten. When the distinction is made, the results are greatly different.

you are certainly teaching the kid a lesson: that it's okay to hit people if you're bigger and stronger than they are.

Has there been any study showing this to be so and that took into account other environmental factors?

[Formless]

People literally unable to make any type of distinction between levels of corporal punishment. It seems like some people don't believe that you can hit someone with a varying degree of strength.

The question is, do kids understand this distinction? After all, most kids don't yet know their own strength, how are they supposed to gauge yours? I've seen kids use this same excuse when called out for hitting other kids. But I've never seen this excuse make the kid who got hit stop crying.

When the distinction is made, the results are greatly different.

Citation?

I do have to ask, you know, since its well known that abuse as a child is a predictor for bullying and abusing ones own kids. And personally, its not surprising considering all the people I've seen who think corporal punishment is okay because... their parents did it to them. So they think its okay parenting. Of course, plural of anecdote and all that.

[Spoonist]

So at least two members who have not covered basic child pshychology then. Here is the short crash course:
101 is Monkey see, Monkey do, as in children will mimik their parents behavior and not necessarily what they say. For the majority its not until three years and for some kids not until five years that the brain becomes adapted to 'trust' and mimic speech alone.
An older sibling who sees the parents using spanking or slapping to correct behavior, will of course mimic that to correct what it percieves as incorrect behavior, both on younger siblings and on other smaller kids.
Now its time to ask what constitutes as incorrect behavior for the kid? But that is for next class.

Instead kids who are hit for disceplin by their parents are more likely to hit other kids.
Anyone who has covered basic child psychology can reason out why its a bad idea to hit the kid in this situation.

Strange. I don't seem to remember either starting fights, hitting others or spoiling for violence as a kid, and neither did my siblings, friends, or anyone else I knew, and we got slapped more than once while growing up. Must be one of those "exception to the rule" things. Or the study was total bullshit.

The study? Uhm, how about decades of studies, as in plural, that show the correlation. Do a scientific google and you'll see dozens of them.
Now if you didn't that's good for you. However I find it very unlikely that if you include "anyone else I knew" that you don't know anyone who got into fights with other kids. Probability alone dictates that that must be a lie.

But here is the problem; now for the sake of argument even if what you say would be true then how come that kids that did not get spanked turn out OK as well?
Its like with christians who claim that they are more moral than others, but atheists turn out OK as well.

So in worst case scenario it is like behavioral scientists have been saying for decades and physical disciplin is bad for the child.
But in the best case scenario its just unecessary pain inflicted on your kid.
Congratulations...

People literally unable to make any type of distinction between levels of corporal punishment. It seems like some people don't believe that you can hit someone with a varying degree of strength. All those studies never make a distinction between someone who would get smacked as opposed to someone getting beaten. When the distinction is made, the results are greatly different.

Of course they differ. However that doesn't help since the 'lightly spanked' are still of worse when compared to the never spanked at all.
You see scientists even in the field of psychology are not total morons so they have contrary to your genius insight there already tested for this.

you are certainly teaching the kid a lesson: that it's okay to hit people if you're bigger and stronger than they are.

Has there been any study showing this to be so and that took into account other environmental factors?

Why the caveat with 'environmental factors'? How would that matter? Problem with environmental factors are that they are very hard to eliminate. The only way has traditionally been to increase the number of data in the studies. Or to pinpoint specific social groups and only do the research on them. Both have been done in the numerous studies in the field.
Unfortunately for your nitpick both ways have shown that spanking at best gives a neutral result but more commonly have shown a negative result, either in aggressive behavior amongst preteens, or teens, or vs partners.
Again, the nonspanked do better, not worse in the vast majority of those papers & studies.

Just to add icing on the cake, you become dumber as well:
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2009/sept/lw25straus.cfm

[evilsoup]

@OP: Pain could possibly be seen to have a positive effect (I don't see it, but some do): either in terms of rehabilitation (though the posters above have summed up the problem with that much better than I could), or deterrence.

Now, the problem with deterrence is that (I'm fairly sure) it doesn't really work: nobody thinks they're going to get caught, and if you follow the logic properly you end up with slow painful death as the punishment for most crimes (which would lead to people committing multiple murders to escape a shoplifting charge).

There is a third reason, and that is that humans are pretty darn horrific at times. There's a part of all of us (well, obviously not you, person-who-is-reading-this) that wants to pay evil unto evil - just look at what's in the HOS from the Bin Laden is Dead thread. If I was feeling uncharitable, I would say that the other two reasons are really rationalisations for this instinct.

[loomer]

Do you include BDSM in your ethics question, or just non-consensual pain and suffering?