Discipline is a tricky subject, and when it comes to physical punishment, opinions are very much divided.
Many people who wouldn’t dream of hitting a pet still think it’s acceptable to smack a child as a way of teaching them right from wrong. The reasoning behind this difference is complicated, and it’s often shaped by culture, beliefs, and long-standing traditions. While attitudes are changing, there are still many reasons why people justify smacking children but not animals. Hopefully, it’s not too long before everyone agrees that physical violence shouldn’t be used against anyone, whether human or animal.
1. They see children as needing discipline, but pets as needing care.
Many people view children and pets in completely different ways. Children are often seen as needing strict guidance to learn right from wrong, while pets are seen as innocent creatures that simply need care and training. Because of this, physical discipline is more often considered acceptable for kids than for animals. There’s a belief that children will grow up badly behaved if they aren’t disciplined properly, whereas pets are expected to learn through positive reinforcement. Sad, it leads to people excusing smacking for kids while seeing physical punishment for pets as cruel or unnecessary.
2. Smacking children has been normalised in many cultures.
In many households, smacking or spanking has been passed down through generations as a common form of discipline. It’s often seen as a traditional way to keep children in line, even if it’s becoming less accepted in modern parenting. When something is normalised, people rarely question it, which is why smacking remains common in some families. Hitting animals, however, has never been widely accepted as a training method. The idea of punishing a pet physically has always been associated with cruelty rather than discipline. As a result, people are more likely to reject physical punishment for pets while still justifying it for children.
3. They see children as capable of understanding punishment.
Some people believe that children can understand the reason behind a punishment, whereas pets can’t. This leads to the argument that smacking a child is a form of correction, while hitting an animal is simply cruel. The assumption is that a child will learn from it, while a pet will just be confused. In reality, children, especially young ones, don’t always process discipline in the way adults think they do. Physical punishment often causes fear rather than understanding, much like it would with an animal. But because kids can eventually verbalise their emotions, people assume they comprehend punishment differently.
4. There are laws against animal cruelty, but fewer protections for children.
Hitting a pet can lead to serious legal consequences, with laws in place to protect animals from abuse. However, smacking a child is still legal in many places, and in some cultures, it’s even encouraged. The difference in legal treatment reinforces the idea that one is unacceptable while the other is a personal parenting choice. Because animal cruelty laws are strict, people are more aware of the consequences of hitting a pet. With children, laws are often vague, leaving discipline methods up to parents. The legal gap allows smacking to continue, even when it might cause harm.
5. They believe physical punishment is necessary for authority.
Many people see spanking as a way to establish authority over a child. They believe that without physical discipline, children won’t respect adults or follow rules. It’s a belief often rooted in the idea that fear equals respect, even though studies suggest otherwise. With pets, however, dominance-based training methods have largely been rejected. Most modern pet training encourages positive reinforcement rather than fear-based control. Because of that change, people are more likely to use kindness with pets while still believing in physical punishment for children.
6. They assume children can differentiate right from wrong.
People often believe that children have a moral understanding that animals do not. They expect kids to know when they’ve done something wrong and to learn from punishment, whereas pets are simply reacting to their environment. That assumption makes smacking seem like a logical consequence for bad behaviour. In reality, both children and animals learn best through consistency and positive reinforcement. Physical punishment might stop bad behaviour in the short term, but it doesn’t necessarily teach the lesson people think it does. Still, the belief that kids should ‘know better’ makes physical discipline more socially accepted.
7. They feel a stronger emotional bond with pets.
Many people have an instinct to protect animals and see them as helpless creatures. The emotional connection makes the idea of hitting a pet feel cruel, even for those who believe in strict discipline. Pets are often treated as beloved family members, whereas children are seen as needing structure and control. While parents obviously love their children, the way they express that love is different from how they treat pets. The idea that discipline is part of love leads to smacking being seen as necessary for children, even though the same logic isn’t applied to animals.
8. They don’t see pets as misbehaving in the same way.
When a pet does something wrong, people are more likely to see it as an accident or a misunderstanding. A dog chewing up furniture or a cat scratching a sofa is viewed as part of their nature rather than deliberate disobedience. Children, on the other hand, are often seen as misbehaving intentionally. It’s a belief that makes people more forgiving toward pets while being stricter with children. A child’s bad behaviour is assumed to be a choice, which is why people feel the need to punish it. With animals, the response is usually to correct the behaviour in a gentler way.
9. Society has shifted towards gentle pet training, but not parenting.
In recent years, animal training has moved toward positive reinforcement rather than punishment. People are encouraged to reward good behaviour instead of punishing bad behaviour, and harsh training methods are widely discouraged. However, parenting techniques haven’t shifted at the same rate. Many people still believe in smacking as an effective way to discipline children. While gentle parenting is becoming more popular, the change has been slower compared to pet training. That gap means that kindness and patience are expected with animals, while stricter discipline is still seen as necessary for kids.
10. They assume children will grow out of it.
People often justify smacking by saying that children will eventually understand why it happened. There’s an assumption that kids will look back and appreciate the discipline, believing it helped shape them into better adults. That reasoning makes parents feel less guilty about using physical punishment. With pets, there’s no future reflection — animals won’t suddenly realise why they were hit. As a result, people feel that punishment would be unfair to a pet, whereas spanking a child is framed as being ‘for their own good.’ The idea that children will grow out of it makes physical punishment seem more acceptable.
11. They were smacked as children and believe it worked.
Many people who support smacking were smacked themselves and believe it had a positive impact. They argue that they turned out fine, so it must be an effective form of discipline. That belief is deeply ingrained in certain cultures, making it harder to challenge. Since most people weren’t physically punished as pets, there’s no similar justification for hitting animals. When spanking is passed down as a parenting method, it continues without much question. People rarely consider that their upbringing might not be the best approach simply because it feels familiar.
12. They see children as an extension of themselves.
Some parents view their children as a reflection of themselves rather than as individuals. Because of this, they take bad behaviour personally and feel the need to correct it in a way that maintains control. Smacking is often used as a way to reinforce authority and prevent embarrassment. With pets, people don’t usually feel the same sense of personal responsibility for their behaviour. If a dog misbehaves, it’s seen as an animal being an animal rather than a personal failure. That difference in perspective makes smacking children more justifiable to some, even though the logic doesn’t hold up.
13. They believe discipline must be physically felt to be effective.
For some, discipline only feels real if it includes a physical consequence. The idea that children need to ‘feel’ punishment to truly learn from it is a belief that has been passed down through generations. Many people assume that without some level of pain or discomfort, discipline won’t have an impact. That reasoning isn’t applied to pets because training methods have evolved to focus on rewards rather than punishment. If the same logic were used for animals, it would be considered abuse. However, because spanking is still socially acceptable in some circles, it continues as a parenting method.
