Students' Perception on Corporal Punishment and its Effect on Learning: A Case of Secondary Schools in Babati Rural District, Tanzania

Abstract

This study sought to establish students’ perception on corporal punishment and its effect on learning among Secondary Schools of Babati Rural
District, Tanzania using Descriptive Design. A random sample of 370 students participated by filling the questionnaire. Experienced researchers
from the University of Arusha validated the instrument before data was collected and Cronbach’s Alpha of between .668 and .736 was yielded by
reliability test. Study findings established that corporal punishment takes place in schools under investigation. Students believed that punishment can
help to monitor their discipline. On the other hand, they perceived that punishment may cause them to escape from classrooms, may lead into
dropouts and can instill fear to learn and therefore contribute to poor performance in their subjects. There is a significant negative correlation between
corporal punishment and participation in learning, meaning the more corporal punishment, the less the students’ involvement in learning. While
students believed that punishment can help to monitor their discipline, it is recommended that teachers should avoid its use since it has other
detrimental effects. Teachers should be adequately equipped with alternative discipline control measures in order to avoid the use of corporal
punishment which reduces the rate of students’ involvement in learning.
Keywords: Corporal, Punishment, Perception, Effect, Leaning, Babati And Tanzania

Full text

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
84 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
Students’ Perception on Corporal Punishment and its Effect on Learning: A Case of
Secondary Schools in Babati Rural District, Tanzania
Baraka Manjale Ngussa1 and Samwel Mdalingwa2
1Senior Lecturer of Curriculum and Teaching, University of Arusha, Tanzania.
2National Council for Technical Education, Arusha, Tanzania.
Article Received: 01 October 2017 Article Accepted: 22 November 2017 Article Published: 07 December 2017
1. INTRODUCTION
Punishment is an issue of great concern among school stakeholders. It is believed to be a means through which
unwanted behaviors can be eradicated and acceptable ones be increased. While teachers use the cane in order to
maintain discipline and control antisocial behaviour of learners, (Alhassan (2013), it is debatable whether corporal
punishment should be acceptable or not. According to Muneja (2013), the debate whether to use caning as a form of
disciplinary measures or not is still alive. Study findings of Ogbe (2015) in Nigeria indicated that both parents and
teachers agreed that corporal punishment is an ideal practice for moulding children in primary schools. Similarly,
School Heads, teachers, and pupils in Kenya perceived punishment as part of pupils learning (Kimani, Kara and
Ogetange, 2012). On the contrary, perception of both teachers and students toward corporal punishment in Jordan
were negative, while their positions toward substitute punishment was positive (Khateeb, 2015). This suggests that
corporal punishment is a controversial issue that need to be thoroughly investigated in order to come up with
necessary recommendations. In response to this problem, this paper investigates on the effect of corporal
punishment on students’ involvement in learning.
Punishment has existed in the history of mankind for a long time. Particularly, the use of the cane in behaviour
modification has been rampant in traditional African society (Alhassan, 2013). A study conducted by Kimani, Kara
and Ogetange (2012) in Kenya found that punishment was a regular school experience for pupils, and the most
prevalent forms of punishment included canning, slapping, kneeling down, pinching, pulling hair/ears and forced
manual work. Study findings show that students who are given physical punishment behave negatively and their
academic progress shows a gradual regression, whereas those who are managed with psychological treatment
ABSTRAC T
This study sought to establish students’ perception on corporal punishment and its effect on learning among Secondary Schools of Babati Rural
District, Tanzania using Descriptive Design. A random sample of 370 students participated by filling the questionnaire. Experienced researchers
from the University of Arusha validated the instrument before data was collected and Cronbach’s Alpha of between .668 and .736 was yielded by
reliability test. Study findings established that corporal punishment takes place in schools under investigation. Students believed that punishment can
help to monitor their discipline. On the other hand, they perceived that punishment may cause them to escape from classrooms, may lead into
dropouts and can instill fear to learn and therefore contribute to poor performance in their subjects. There is a significant negative correlation between
corporal punishment and participation in learning, meaning the more corporal punishment, the less the students’ involvement in learning. While
students believed that punishment can help to monitor their discipline, it is recommended that teachers should avoid its use since it has other
detrimental effects. Teachers should be adequately equipped with alternative discipline control measures in order to avoid the use of corporal
punishment which reduces the rate of students’ involvement in learning.
Keywords: Corporal, Punishment, Perception, Effect, Leaning, Babati And Tanzania.

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
85 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
develop their interest in learning, reflect friendly behaviour and improve their long-term scholastic performance
(Al-Taher, 2014). According to Boser (2001), learners who are physically punished develop negative attitudes
towards learning and when they develop into adulthood, possess no empathy for others. According to Roussow
(2003), students who receive punishment show symptoms of dejection in studies, poor performance in tests and do
not participate in the teaching and learning process enthusiastically. In Australia, Sanderson (2002) found that
corporal punishment decreases students’ motivation to learn and increases poor attitudes toward learning.
According to Jyoti and Neetu (2013), punishment inhibits learning, interferes with the accomplishment of each of
the important developmental tasks of children and has potential for physical harm to the child. This suggests how
sensitive punishment measure can be and how if need be, has to be administered with great care. It is out of this
reality that this study was conducted to investigate on the effect of punishment on students’ involvement in
Learning.
1.1 Theoretical Perspectives
Arguments for punishment measures are centered on utilitarian theory which sees infliction of suffering not as
intrinsically required but as a means to realizing good consequences. The goal of utilitarian theory is to prevent
future crime by giving students ability to succeed within the confines of the rules and regulation in the school
through punishment (Illingworth (2004). Under utilitarian theory, school rules and regulations are used to
maximize the happiness of students because crime and punishment are inconsistent with happiness and should be
kept to a minimum. Utilitarian theory further contends that a crime-free society cannot exist, but there should be an
endeavor to inflict only as much punishment as is required to prevent further crimes (Davis, 2000).
According to Ross and Hannay (2002), utilitarian theory considers the most direct and immediate effect of
punishment and, from this perspective, punishment is a bad thing because it causes unhappiness to the offender. It
is only justified because of the wider contingent benefits it produces, which it is felt to outweigh the bad
consequences. According to this theory, therefore, learners should be punished when, and only when punishment
maximizes happiness in the future (Ali (2001). This theory further contends that punishment is part of learning
since it promotes the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people, and the least amount of pain to
the least number of people (Peters, 1966). The theory further insists that an action is considered to be right or
wrong based on the consequences of it and its effects on majority of the people (West, 2004). This means that an
action or practice is ethically correct when it produces more positive consequences in comparison to negative ones
to those who are involved in it (Goldman, 1982).
1.2 Punishment Measures and Learning
A number of studies have been conducted in relation to punishment and learning. Arif and Rafi (2007), for
instance, conducted a study and found that students who went through corporal punishment showed negative
behavior whereas students who are managed with psychological treatment developed their interest in learning,
reflected friendly behavior and improved their long-term scholastic performance. In South Asia, punishment is

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
86 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
often considered necessary to children’s upbringing, to facilitate learning and to instill discipline. As in many
countries, corporal punishment reflects hierarchical and unequal power relations, which emphasize children’s lack
of power and low socio- economic status.
It is believed that if children are not punished they will develop into unruly and uncontrollable citizens. Although
some governments have made provisions concerning corporal punishment, the laws are viewed by teachers,
parents and professionals as being too broad and therefore open to a variety of interpretations (Unicef Asian
Report, 2001). Elbla (2012) investigated on the issue of corporal and verbal punishment as means of disciplining
students’ behavior in schools of Sudan. Findings revealed that teachers wee aware of the fact that punishment has
negative impact on students’ behavior and learning but still they used punitive strategies as a result of stress and
frustration they themselves experienced at school due to the fact that school environments are poor and lack
facilities.
A study conducted in Tanzania by Feinstein and Mwahombela (2010) found that corporal punishment was
common in secondary schools. The majority of teachers supported its continued use, but believed in its moderation.
Students, however, reported disliking the practice and believed it was ineffective and resulted in emotional as well
as physical distress. Save the Children project (2008) made a study with an aim to establish the prevalence of
corporal and humiliating punishment on children in both schools and homes and findings revealed that corporal and
other forms of humiliating punishment were existing and the practice of corporal and humiliating punishment was
found to be very high among teachers.
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research methodology is a roadmap that explains how a study is conducted. This section discusses research
methodology utilized in this study. It addresses such issues as research design, data collection instrument,
population and sampling as well as validity and reliability of research instrument.
2.1 Research Design
Research design can be defined as the arrangement of condition for collection and analysis of data in a manner that
aims at arriving at a research outcome. In this study, descriptive survey design was employed. Descriptive survey is
a branch of social scientific investigation designs which studies large and small populations by selecting and
studying samples chosen from the population. It is used to allow researchers to gather information, summarize,
present and interpret data before concluding and coming up with recommendations (Kothari, 2011).
2.2 Data Collection Instrument
Questionnaire was the main instrument which was used to collect data. According to Kothari (2011), questionnaire
is the most widely used instruments for obtaining information from individuals. The researchers administered it in
person, going to various schools under investigation and giving the students the questionnaires to respond to.

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
87 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
2.3 Population and Sampling
According to Orodho (2013), population refers to as an aggregate or totality of all the objects, subjects or members
that conform to a set of specifications. In this study, the population was secondary school students in Babati
District. According to the Education officer in Babati District Council, there were 27 secondary schools with
13,126 students by the time of data collection. From these, the study sample of 370 was obtained by using
probability simple random sampling technique.
2.4 Validity and Reliability
Validity is the ability of a measuring instrument to measure what it claims to measure (Kothari 2011). Validity is
concerned with whether the instrument covers the domain or items that it supports (Cohen, Manion & Morrison,
2000). Validity further means items in the questionnaire measure what they are intended to measure (Kombo,
2006). In order to ensure acceptable validity of the instrument, expert judgment was used whereby experienced
researchers at the University of Arusha went through the questionnaire and gave necessary comments for
improvement before the actual data collection took place.
Reliability, on the other hand, is a measure of the degree to which a research instrument supplies consistent results
after repeated trials (Cooper and Schindler, 2006; Fraenkel and Wallen (2000). In this study, reliability of the
questionnaire was established through a pilot study whereby 39 students in one school in Arusha city participated
to fill the questionnaire.
Responses were coded into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences program, and Cronbach’s Alpha was used to
measure acceptable reliability of items in the questionnaire. The cut off point for acceptable reliability coefficient
was 0.6 and results, as it can be seen in Table 1 ranged between .668 and .736which means the questionnaire was
reliable.
Table 1: Reliability
SN
VARIABLE
ITEMS
CRONBACH’S
ALPHA
INTERPRETATION
1
Students’ Attitude toward Punishment
8
.733
Reliable
2
The Rate of Corporal Punishment
7
.668
Reliable
3
Attitude toward Learning.
6
.736
Reliable
1. Analysis and Interpretation of Data
The present study was guided by three research questions as follows: (1) what is students’ attitude toward
punishment in Secondary Schools of Babati Rural District? (2) To what extent does Corporal Punishment Take
Place in Secondary Schools of Babati Rural District? (3) Is there significant correlation between Corporal
Punishment and students’ involvement in learning? The first two research questions were analyzed through
descriptive statistics while the third one was done through inferential statistics and therefore called for hypothesis
testing.

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
88 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
a. What is Students’ Attitude toward Punishment in Secondary Schools of Babati Rural District?
The first research question sought to establish the attitude of learners towards punishment. The attitude was
determined by mean scores to eight questionnaire items under the following scales of interpretation: 3.50-4.00 =
Strongly Agree, 2.50-3.49 = Agree, 1.50-2.49 = Disagree and 1.00-1.49 = Strongly Disagree.
Table 2: Students’ Attitude toward Punishment
SN
ITEM
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
1.
Punishment helps to monitor students’
discipline.
3.2725
Agree
2.
Punishment has positive influence toward
learning.
3.2107
Agree
3.
Punishment motivates students to learn.
3.0944
Agree
4.
Punishment makes students understand
quickly.
2.8195
Agree
5.
Punishment causes some students to
escape from classroom.
3.1966
Agree
6.
Punishment instills fear into students for
them to learn.
3.1348
Agree
7.
Punishment leads to drop outs
3.1231
Agree
8.
Punishment contributes to poor
performance in my subjects
2.9463
Agree
As Table 2 indicates, students agreed that punishment helps to monitor their discipline (M=3.2725). This is in
harmony with findings of Ogbe (2015) in Nigeria which indicated that both parents and teachers believed that
punishment is an ideal practice for moulding children in schools. Similarly, School Heads, teachers, and pupils in
Kenya perceived punishment as part of pupils learning (Kimani, Kara and Ogetange, 2012).
Therefore, since students perceived punishment to be an ideal practice, teachers can easily employ punishment
measures, when necessary, to control students’ behaviors. Findings in Table 2 further indicate that students agreed
that punishment has positive influence toward learning (M=3.2107), motivates them to learn (M=3.0944) and
makes them understand quickly (M=2.8195). This implies that students perceived that punishment can be used to
boost their academic performance.
On the other hand, students agreed that punishment causes them to escape from the classrooms (M=3.1966) and
instills fear to learn (M=3.1348). They also agreed that punishment leads to dropout (M=3.1231) and contributes to
poor performance in their subjects (M=2.9463).
This is in harmony with the findings of Arif and Rafi (2007) that, those students who go through corporal
punishment develop negative behavior. With this fact, we can therefore argue that while punishment has benefits
on the one hand, it can also bring about negative effect on the learners especially when not administered
appropriately.

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
89 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
b. To what extent does Corporal Punishment Take Place in Secondary Schools of Babati Rural District?
This research question sought to establish the extent to which different aspects of corporal punishment take place in
schools under investigation. Analysis of this research question was guided by seven items in the questionnaire
whereby respondents gave their opinions which were interpreted in terms of mean scores under the following range
of interpretation: 3.50-4.00 = Very Frequently, 2.50-3.49 = Frequently, 1.50-2.49 = Rarely and 1.00-1.49 = Not at
All.
Table 3: Extent to which Corporal Punishment Takes Place
SN
ITEM
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
1.
I am told to kneel down when I do a mistake.
3.0786
Frequently
2.
Teachers use canning as punishment measure.
3.1892
Frequently
3.
I am slapped as punishment for a mistake.
3.0902
Frequently
4.
Pinching in my school is used as punishment
measure.
2.8856
Frequently
5.
I am pulled my hair or ears for a mistake.
2.7459
Frequently
6.
Teachers are not faire when administering
punishment.
2.9511
Frequently
7.
Some teachers are fault finders in order to
punish.
3.0197
Frequently
As Table 3 indicates, students are frequently told to kneel down when they do mistakes (M= 3.0786) and teachers
frequently use canning as punishment measure (M=3.1892). The students are slapped as punishment for mistakes
(M=3.0902) and pinching is used as punishment measure (M=2.8856). Students also indicated that they are pulled
their hairs or ears for a mistake (M=2.7459), teachers are not fair when administering punishment (M=2.9511) and
some teachers are fault finders in order to punish (M=3.0197). This implies that corporal punishment frequently
take place in schools under investigation. The findings are in harmony with that of Save the Children project
(2008), which was done with an aim to establish the prevalence of corporal and humiliating punishment on children
in both schools and homes. Findings of the study revealed that the practice of corporal and humiliating punishment
was very high. Furthermore, Feinstein and Mwahombela (2010)’s findings in Tanzanian Secondary Schools
indicated that corporal punishment was the most common form of punishment. The majority of teachers supported
its continued use but believed in moderation. The majority of students and teachers were, however, unaware of
national laws to restrict corporal punishment. There was also agreement between students and teachers that
corporal punishment was used for both major and minor offences such as misbehavior and tardiness. Students,
though, reported disliking the practice and believed it was ineffective and resulted in emotional, as well as physical
distress. Therefore, while it is true that corporal punishment can prevent unwanted behaviors, it can also bring
about detrimental effects to the learners.
c. Is there significant correlation between Corporal Punishment and students’ involvement in learning?
This research question sought to establish the effect of corporal punishment on students’ involvement in learning.
The question called for testing of a null hypothesis which states: there is no significant relationship between
corporal punishment and students’ involvement in learning.

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
90 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
Table 4: Correlations between Corporal punishment and students’ Learning
LEARNING
CORPORAL
Involvement in Learning
Pearson Correlation
1
-.206**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
370
370
Corporal Punishment
Pearson Correlation
-.206**
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
370
370
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
This hypothesis was tested by Pearson Product moment correlational coefficient. As it can be seen in Table 4, there
is a negative correlation (Pearson Correlation -206) between corporal punishment and students’ involvement in
learning. The Table also indicates the Sig. of .000 which is lesser than the critical value (0.01) thus, leading to
rejection of the null hypothesis and therefore maintaining that there is a significant negative correlation between
corporal punishment and students’ involvement in learning.
This implies that the more corporal punishment takes place, the less the students are involved in the learning
process. Therefore, corporal punishment affects negatively the rate of students’ involvement in learning. These
findings are in harmony with that of Jyoti and Neetu (2013) that, students who experienced corporal punishment
show higher levels of depression and feelings of hopelessness as well as an increased propensity to use violence.
3. CONCLUSIONS
This section gives the following conclusions and recommendations based on analysis and interpretation of three
research questions that guided this study:
First, students believed that punishment can help to monitor their discipline and agreed that punishment has
positive influence toward learning, motivates them to learn effectively and makes them understand quickly.
Second, on the other hand, students perceived that punishment may cause them to escape from the classrooms, may
lead into dropouts and can instill fear to learn and therefore contribute to poor performance in their subjects. Third,
corporal punishment frequently takes place in schools under investigation. Particularly, students are told to kneel
down when they do mistakes and teachers use canning slapping and pinching as punishment measures. Lastly,
there is a significant negative correlation between corporal punishment and participation in learning. This implies
that the more corporal punishment takes place, the less the students are involved in the learning process. Therefore,
corporal punishment hinders students’ involvement in learning.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions regarding prevalence of punishment measures in schools under investigation, the
researchers give the following recommendations: First, while students believed that punishment can help to
monitor their discipline and agreed that punishment has positive influence toward learning, teachers should avoid

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
91 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
its use since it has other detrimental effects. Second, teachers should be adequately equipped with alternative
discipline control measures in order to avoid the use of corporal punishment which reduces the rate of students’
involvement in learning.
REFERENCES
[1] Alhassan, A. B. (2013). School Corporal Punishment in Ghana And Nigeria As A Method Of Discipline: A
Psychological Examination Of Policy And Practice. Journal of Education and Practice 4 (27), 137-147.
[2] Ali, A., & Shah, M.A. (2011). Relationship between Attitude of Teachers and their Behavior on Corporal
Punishment. The S.U. Jour. of Ed., 41, 140-147.
[3] Arif, M.S. & Rafi, M.S. (2007). Effects of Corporal Punishment and Psychological Treatment on Students’
Learning and Behavior. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(2), 171-180.
[4] Al-Taher, M. (2014). Physical Punishment and Psychological Treatment on Students'Learning and
Behavior. Journal of Education and Practice 5 (17), 122- 126.
[5] Boser, U. (2001). The Unsparing Rod: Schools are still Fighting the Right to Paddle. U.S. News and World
Report (p. 43). Washington.
[6] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th ed). London:
Rougtledge Falmer
[7] Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business Research Methods (9th ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill.
[8] Davis, M. (2000). The Utilitarian theory of Punishment. Law and Philosophy,(6)321-350.
[9] Elbla, A. I. F., (2012). Is punishment (corporal or verbal) an effective means of discipline in schools?: Case
study of two basic schools in Greater Khartoum/Sudan. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69,
1656-1663.
[10] Feinstein, S., & Mwahombela, L. (2010). Corporal punishment in Tanzania’s schools. International Review
Of Education, 56(4), 399-410. Doi:10.1007/s11159-010- 9169-5.
[11] Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (4th ed.),
SAGE Thousand Oaks, New York, U.S.A. 264pp.

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
92 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
[12] Goldman, A. (1982). Toward a New Theory of Punishment. Law and Philosophy,(45)57- 76.
[13] Illingworth S I. (2004). Approaches to ethics in higher education: teaching ethics across the curriculum.
Leeds: Philosophical and Religious Studies Subject Centre
[14] Jyoti, S. & Neetu, S. (2013). Implications of corporal punishment on primary school children. Babasaheb
Bhimrao Ambedkar University. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, Vol. 15, 2279-0845.
[15] Khateeb, L. H. (2015). The Status of Corporal Punishment in Jordanian Primary Schools from the
Perspectives of: Teachers, Students, and Parents. Journal of Education and Practice 6 (27), 161-174.
[16] Kimani, G. N., Kara, A. M. & Ogetange, T. B. (2012). Teachers and Pupils Views on Persistent Use of
Corporal Punishment in Managing Discipline in Primary Schools in Starehe Division, Kenya
[17] Kombo, D. K., & Tromp, D.L. (2006). Proposal and thesis writing: An introduction. Nairobi: Pauline’s
Publications Africa.
[18] Kothari C R (2011). Research Methodology Methods and Techniques 6th edition New Age. New Delhi,
India: International (P) Ltd Publishers.
[19] Muneja, M. S. (2013). Teacher Experiences of Disciplinary Measures in Tanzania Adventist Secondary
School: A Case Study. Journal of Education and Practice 4 (25), 169-177.
[20] Ogbe, J. O. (2015). Analysis of Parents/Teachers Perception of the Use of Corporal Punishment in Primary
Schools in Delta and Edo State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice 6 (28), 23-28.
[21] Orodho, J. A. (2013). Techniques of writing research proposals and reports in education and social
sciences. Nairobi: Kanezja Publishers
[22] Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics theories and Education, Oxford: George Allen and Unwin Limited.
[23] Ross, E.W. & Hannay, L.M. (2002). Towards a critical theory of reflective inquiry. Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(4), 9-15.
[24] Roussow. J. P. (2003). Learner discipline in South African public schools. Koers.

Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 84-93, October-December 2017
93 | P a g e Website: www.mjbas.com
[25] Sanderson, V. (2002). Diversity and Discipline: The Impact of Punishment on Indigenous Students’
Attitudes Towards Schooling. University of South Australia. Aboriginal Research Institute
[26] Save the Children. (2008). Prevalence of corporal punishment and other forms of humiliating Punishment
on children in Swaziland. Ministry of Human Resource Development. Gazette of India 27 Aug 2009compared
to other members of staff in schools.
[27] UNICEF: Asian Report (2001). Corporal Punishment in Schools in South Asia. Katmandu, Nepal.
[28] West, H. (2004). An introduction to Mill’s utilitarian ethics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.