Seite - 102 - in Reflective Cosmopolitanism - Educating towards inclusive communities through Philosophical Enquiry

102 REfLECTIvE COsMOPOLITANIsM Violence can be understood as being any action or lack of action that hurts or may hurt a person and threatens his life and dignity. Key questions raised include whether an attack on dignity can ever be considered just, or whether there can ever be such a thing as fair violence. Justifying violence in certain situations (mainly in those situations labeled as “su- preme emergency” or “force majeure”) is something seen by many as a kind of response which constitutes a case of “fair violence”. Those who defend a violent reaction in su- preme emergency situations assess the negative consequences that each action entails and choose the least costly option (using a “pragmatic” approach). There is a delicate balance here between the demand for justice and the need to avoid violence. The following situations lead students to consider whether certain emer- gency situations (“force majeure” situations) might require the use of violence, to consider under which circumstances such violence would really be “the right thing to do,” and un- der which circumstances it would not be right. You can find further resources on the concept of “justice” in the manual to In and out the park, episode 4, leading idea 1 “Distributive justice”, exercise “Distributive justice” and discussion plans. Discussion Plan: What are fights good for? 1. If you win a fight, does that mean you are right? 2. If you lose a fight, does that mean you are not right? 3. If you lose a fight, will that change the way you think? Will that change the ideas or beliefs you had before the fight? Will you now believe that you were wrong? 4. Once the fight is over, if you have won, will you have more arguments to defend the ideas or beliefs you had before the fight? 5. If you win a fight, does that mean the other person will change their opinion or the way they think? 6. Whenever there is a fight, is there always a winner and a loser? Can both sides win? Can both sides lose? 7. Is fighting over a ball in a football match the same thing as fighting over verbal abuse? 8. Is fighting over a ball in a football match the same thing as fighting to defend a friend who has been attacked? 9. Is fighting over a ball in a football match the same thing as fighting to defend our ideas? 10. Is fighting for your ideas the same thing as defending yourself? 11. Is fighting for your ideas the same thing as physically fighting for your ideas? 12. Can you fight for your ideas or beliefs without actually physically fighting? 13. If someone hits you, how can you avoid that situation? How can you defend yourself? 14. If you are attacked, do you have the right to defend yourself? Do you have reason to defend yourself? 15. Would fighting back be justified? Under what circumstances would it be fair to fight back? 16. Are there any situations where fighting for something necessarily implies physi- cally fighting? 17. There is a set phrase which says “Two cannot fight if one does not want to fight.” Do you agree? 18. What other possibilities apart from fighting do you have when you argue with another person?