Page - 103 - in Reflective Cosmopolitanism - Educating towards inclusive communities through Philosophical Enquiry

CHRIsTIAN (MANUAL) 103 Activity/Exercise: Is the use of violence ever justifiable? Do you consider the use of violence as fair in any of the following situations? Why? Is ‘fair’ the same thing as ‘justifiable’? (This exercise can be done as an activity, ar- ranging your students in a line, and telling them take one step to the right if it is fair or one step left if not. Then, ask some of them to give a reason. After listening to the reasons, students can change their position). You can also use the “light” technique without moving from their places (using colors: green if is fair, red if not, yellow if it can be discussed). 1. To defend ourselves while being robbed. 2. To keep someone from even thinking about attaching you. 3. To win other people’s respect. 4. To get back at someone after they have insulted or cheated you. 5. To defend ourselves from an attack. 6. To avoid a possible attack from someone who has previously attacked you. 7. To defend people who are close to you who are being attacked. 8. To avoid a possible attack on people who are close to you who have been at- tacked previously. 9. To defend someone who is being attacked. 10. To defend someone who looks like they may be attacked. 11. Only in situations where violence is the best option.21 12. Only in situations where violence is the only option. 13. It is only justifiable if your life or the life of others is at risk. Episode 5: Sharing the court evenly Leading Idea 1: Justice: to need, to deserve According to the political philosopher Michael Sandel, “Asking if a society is just is asking how this society distributes the things we value – income, wealth, duties and rights, power and opportunities, position and honors. A just society distributes these goods correctly: it gives each person what he deserves.”22 Sandel admits that the problem is determining who deserves what and for what reasons. We normally think that rewarding someone on “merit” and giving someone what they “deserve” are the same thing, so the just thing to do would be to give each individual what they deserve depending on merit. However, the question is not that simple. Who deserves the court more? Who needs it more? Who de- cides who needs more and who deserves more? According to some theories of justice, the notion of merit includes the idea of talent or innate or genetic ability (one we are born with) and the idea of effort or work (everything we accomplish through our acts). It is common to think it is just to be rewarded based on our effort and talent. In principle, it would seem just to offer equal opportunities and then, award rewards to those who work the hardest or who simply are more talented. 21 This exercise tries to explore all the potential cases in which violence might be used, and seeks to confront the question of whether violence can be justified even when it’s the best option. 22 Michael Sandel, Justice: What is the right thing to do?, NY, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009, p. 19.