JPhilanthropy.com :: Programs and Activities

Present a couple of general ideas, preferably a linked pair of opposing ethical or social principles. When you are introducing concepts as opposed to lengthier "arguments" (see "Philosophical Texts" below), you should keep the activity short. You are, after all, going to come back to and use these concepts at other times.

This can be as simple as saying: "There are two main principles about concern for other people. One is v'ahavta l're'acha kamocha –'Love your neighbor as yourself' (Leviticus 19:18). Another is ahavat ha-ger-- in Leviticus 19:34, the Torah says that you should not oppress a stranger, 'but you should love him as yourself because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.'" Then get a brief discussion going by asking:

Decoding Artifacts

Take something familiar in the world--a T-shirt, the soda you are drinking, the building you are meeting in. Decode it. Where did it come from? Who was/is involved in its history or its use, and how do they relate to each other? The idea is to reveal the ethical, economic, and political complexities of things we usually see through, like the air.

Philosophical Texts

Reading a philosophical argument usually involves two things. One is understanding the author's reasoning, and trying to figure out what makes her believe the things she is arguing for. This means "getting inside" the philosopher's head and trying out her arguments. The other dimension is reacting--gut reactions and hunches, reasoned criticisms or supporting ideas, thinking about whether you like the consequences of this philosophy.

In practice, people encountering a philosophical essay or text for the first time do both sets of things. You can help participants "get inside" by making certain kinds of comments or questions, such as:

It is worth reading a philosophical essay if one two things are the case. (1) The argument or the terms are so influential that you are going to keep coming back to this particular writer's ideas when you think about other things. (2) You are going to read a contrasting viewpoint, and use them to sharpen thinking about an important issue.

Dilemma Discussions

The idea of structured discussions of "justice dilemmas" came out of the work of Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychologist who studied the development of moral reasoning in the 1960s and 1970s. Kohlberg's theory is that individuals move through a series of stages in their ability to think about dilemmas that involve conflicts between the claims or interests of individuals, or between those of individuals and society as a whole. (Click for an in-depth presentation of Kohlberg)

In Kohlberg's view, a person does not advance to the "available" stage until her current stage of thinking is challenged by an argument demonstrating that next stage. Adults do not all reach the higher stages; most teens and adults reason at stages 3 and 4 of Kohlberg's six stages. You can tell a person's stage not by the substance of his answers--what he thinks is right and wrong--but by the kinds of reasons and explanations he gives.

Dilemma discussions are carefully written so that in a typical group, people will be exposed to reasoning at the next higher level than their own. (See " Confrontation in the Synagogue ")

Narratives--Personal Stories, Histories or Examples from Social Movements

Another way to think about dilemmas and broad issues is by reading stories. Dilemmas and values come to life as people describe their own actions and decisions, and reflect on them. Looking at biographical or historical writing, interviewing people, watching films and videos, reading short fiction, learning about an ongoing campaign of action–each activates a different part of the mind than discussing pure philosophy or concepts.

At some point, the concepts or broad issues the group has been exposed to should be brought to the surface--if not on the spot, then at a later date.

These stories are everywhere, even in the family history of teens!

Here the idea is to use one or more concepts, writers, or texts as "lenses" through which to view something else. Take a look at a recent speech by a political candidate, for instance, and ask, "What would Buber have to say about this? Does this sound more like Rambam or Ben Franklin?" You can do the same thing with an article from the paper, a pamphlet from an organization, a story from the news.

Take a speech, an editorial, a pamphlet, a website, and read it carefully out loud. Stop every time someone comes across a word that seems "loaded"--something you might not notice but which actually carries some kind of agenda.

Types of Discussion Activities