Ethical ClaimsBoth ethics and morals involve considerations abou.docxSANSKAR20
Ethical Claims
Both ethics and morals involve considerations about what’s right and wrong. The term “ethics” derives from the Greek word ethos, meaning character, while “moral” comes from the Latin word moralis, meaning ethical. So the words “ethics” and “morals” are often used interchangeably.
For most of this text, we’ve been exploring the ways that people provide support that a claim is true. But now we’re exploring something quite different: how people provide support that a claim is right—not “right” in the sense of being accurate but “right” in the sense of being the morally correct thing to do.
Not everything has a moral dimension. Some things, like arithmetic, are amoral. The equation 2 + 2 = 4 is neither good nor bad, it’s just true. In contrast, consider the following claim:
It is wrong to eat meat.
This is still a conclusion, and to persuade others to believe it we will need to construct an argument (i.e., provide sound reasoning to support this conclusion). So we’re still dealing with claims and arguments, fallacies and sources, and so on, but we’ve completely left the realm of science, with its observable phenomena and replicable experiments. We’re in the land of ethics now.
We learn ethics like we learn everything else: through a mixture of personal experience and shared knowledge. Every society possesses a sense that some things are right and others are wrong. Generally speaking, we believe that it is good to help other people and bad to hurt them. We learn this from our own reactions to things as we grow up and develop our sense of self. And these lessons are reinforced by parents, teachers, friends, and strangers, as well as in the stories of our culture.
A Few Helpful Terms for Discussing Ethics
Ethics: thinking and reasoning about right and wrong.
Moral principles: rules of conduct that guide an individual’s actions to take into account the interests of other people.
Excuse: a reason offered for breaking a moral principle in a given situation.
Justification: an argument claiming that violating some moral principle is actually the right course of action in a given situation.
Killing is wrong… (moral principle)
… unless you are killing someone as punishment for killing someone else. (justification)
Moral dilemma: a situation in which there is not an obvious ethically right or wrong answer, often because there are two moral principles in conflict with each other.
An armed man has entered a school and is killing children.
It’s wrong to kill.
Should I kill him to keep him from killing others?
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
How do moral claims differ from other types of claims?
· There’s no such thing as a fallacy in a moral claim.
· They make a claim about what’s right and wrong.
· They must be supported by evidence.
· They contain a premise and a conclusion.
Multiple Choice Question
Kayla normally believes that a mother should make her child as happy as possibl ...
Weeks 5 & 6 – YOU as a stakeholderI Morals & Ethical Pri.docxphilipnelson29183
Weeks 5 & 6 – YOU as a stakeholder
I Morals & Ethical Principles
II Ethical Decision Making in Business
(Why good people do bad things)
Greg Smith
Choice of
Ethical
Perspective
Morality:
The social rules that govern & limit our conduct, especially the ultimate rules concerning right and wrong.
The basic guidelines for cooperative social existence.
Serves to restrain the purely self-interested desires in each of us in order to make it possible for all of us to live together.
When we make a decision or take an action we can be:
Moral - in compliance with moral standards
key operating questions of management is "is this action or decision fair to us and all stakeholders involved?"
Immoral - in opposition to moral standards
key operating question of management is "can we make money with this action or decision regardless of what it takes?"
Amoral - without consideration of moral standards
key operating question of management is "can we make money with this action or decision?"
Nonmoral - outside the sphere of moral concern
Moral standards get confused with:
Law Etiquette
Conscience
Corporate/Professional Codes
Religion
Moral Relativism:
The belief that morality is just a function of what a particular society happens to believe, that what is right is determined by what a society says is right.
abortion is condemned as immoral in Catholic Spain, but is practiced as a morally neutral form of birth control in Japan
Moral relativists believe that there is no absolute moral standard independent of culture, no universal definition of right or wrong.
polygamy, stealing, slavery have all been tolerated by the moral system of one society or another
Moral Universalism is the belief that variations in moral standards reflect different factual circumstances rather than fundamental differences in values.
Which is right?
It is good to emphasize that in viewing other cultures we should keep
an open mind and not simply dismiss their social practices.
Compromise position is Moral Perspectivalism,
the consideration of multiple perspectives while at the same time asserting universal truths.
Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Development
*
1. Preconventional Level:
- how we behave as infants & children
- emphasis in decisions is on ourselves
Stage 1 - Reaction to punishment - pain avoidance
Stage 2 - Seeking of rewards - praise, candy, trip to a movie
2. Conventional Level:
- child learns the importance of conforming to norms of society
Stage 3 - Good boy/nice girl morality - rewards such as feelings of warmth, loyalty acceptance from family & peers
Stage 4 - Law and order morality - certain norms are expected in society - individual sees himself as part of a larger social system
3. Postconventional Level:
- a more advanced notion of right or wrong than that which is conventionally articulated
- moral principles are internalized, seen as "right"
- focus is on humanity as a whole
- f.
Due Week 8 and worth 200 pointsIn preparation for this assignmen.docxshandicollingwood
Due Week 8 and worth 200 points
In preparation for this assignment, please view the Jurisville scenarios and resulting simulations from Weeks 5 through 7 in Unit 2: Courts.
In the scenarios and resulting simulations, Tim Smith, senior criminal lawyer, discusses select cases and asks a paralegal to indicate which courts would have exclusive jurisdiction of the cases in question. He also discusses various pretrial procedures and illustrates them with select cases. Finally, Tim Smith introduces the case of Roland Gary, who served twenty-three (23) years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. The case brought to light several key issues, along with the manner in which they were resolved.
Use the Internet to research three real-life cases from the past five (5) years that fit the following criteria:
Cases that depict the unique processes related to different courts
The defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial
The defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated
Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:
Discuss one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and identify the court that took jurisdiction. Explain why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances.
Discuss the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Give your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question. Provide a rationale for the response.
Discuss the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated. Explore one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large. Describe the resolution to the selected case.
Use at least three (3) quality resources in this assignment.
Note:
Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
Summarize the current ethical issues faced by criminal justice professionals and future of the criminal justice system.
Explain the development of American courts and illustrate the concept of the dual-court system.
Distinguish between the various courtroom participants, and describe the stages in a criminal trial.
Use technology and information resources to research issues in criminal justice.
Write clearly and concisely about criminal justice using proper writing mechanics and AP.
Ethical ClaimsBoth ethics and morals involve considerations abou.docxSANSKAR20
Ethical Claims
Both ethics and morals involve considerations about what’s right and wrong. The term “ethics” derives from the Greek word ethos, meaning character, while “moral” comes from the Latin word moralis, meaning ethical. So the words “ethics” and “morals” are often used interchangeably.
For most of this text, we’ve been exploring the ways that people provide support that a claim is true. But now we’re exploring something quite different: how people provide support that a claim is right—not “right” in the sense of being accurate but “right” in the sense of being the morally correct thing to do.
Not everything has a moral dimension. Some things, like arithmetic, are amoral. The equation 2 + 2 = 4 is neither good nor bad, it’s just true. In contrast, consider the following claim:
It is wrong to eat meat.
This is still a conclusion, and to persuade others to believe it we will need to construct an argument (i.e., provide sound reasoning to support this conclusion). So we’re still dealing with claims and arguments, fallacies and sources, and so on, but we’ve completely left the realm of science, with its observable phenomena and replicable experiments. We’re in the land of ethics now.
We learn ethics like we learn everything else: through a mixture of personal experience and shared knowledge. Every society possesses a sense that some things are right and others are wrong. Generally speaking, we believe that it is good to help other people and bad to hurt them. We learn this from our own reactions to things as we grow up and develop our sense of self. And these lessons are reinforced by parents, teachers, friends, and strangers, as well as in the stories of our culture.
A Few Helpful Terms for Discussing Ethics
Ethics: thinking and reasoning about right and wrong.
Moral principles: rules of conduct that guide an individual’s actions to take into account the interests of other people.
Excuse: a reason offered for breaking a moral principle in a given situation.
Justification: an argument claiming that violating some moral principle is actually the right course of action in a given situation.
Killing is wrong… (moral principle)
… unless you are killing someone as punishment for killing someone else. (justification)
Moral dilemma: a situation in which there is not an obvious ethically right or wrong answer, often because there are two moral principles in conflict with each other.
An armed man has entered a school and is killing children.
It’s wrong to kill.
Should I kill him to keep him from killing others?
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
How do moral claims differ from other types of claims?
· There’s no such thing as a fallacy in a moral claim.
· They make a claim about what’s right and wrong.
· They must be supported by evidence.
· They contain a premise and a conclusion.
Multiple Choice Question
Kayla normally believes that a mother should make her child as happy as possibl ...
Weeks 5 & 6 – YOU as a stakeholderI Morals & Ethical Pri.docxphilipnelson29183
Weeks 5 & 6 – YOU as a stakeholder
I Morals & Ethical Principles
II Ethical Decision Making in Business
(Why good people do bad things)
Greg Smith
Choice of
Ethical
Perspective
Morality:
The social rules that govern & limit our conduct, especially the ultimate rules concerning right and wrong.
The basic guidelines for cooperative social existence.
Serves to restrain the purely self-interested desires in each of us in order to make it possible for all of us to live together.
When we make a decision or take an action we can be:
Moral - in compliance with moral standards
key operating questions of management is "is this action or decision fair to us and all stakeholders involved?"
Immoral - in opposition to moral standards
key operating question of management is "can we make money with this action or decision regardless of what it takes?"
Amoral - without consideration of moral standards
key operating question of management is "can we make money with this action or decision?"
Nonmoral - outside the sphere of moral concern
Moral standards get confused with:
Law Etiquette
Conscience
Corporate/Professional Codes
Religion
Moral Relativism:
The belief that morality is just a function of what a particular society happens to believe, that what is right is determined by what a society says is right.
abortion is condemned as immoral in Catholic Spain, but is practiced as a morally neutral form of birth control in Japan
Moral relativists believe that there is no absolute moral standard independent of culture, no universal definition of right or wrong.
polygamy, stealing, slavery have all been tolerated by the moral system of one society or another
Moral Universalism is the belief that variations in moral standards reflect different factual circumstances rather than fundamental differences in values.
Which is right?
It is good to emphasize that in viewing other cultures we should keep
an open mind and not simply dismiss their social practices.
Compromise position is Moral Perspectivalism,
the consideration of multiple perspectives while at the same time asserting universal truths.
Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Development
*
1. Preconventional Level:
- how we behave as infants & children
- emphasis in decisions is on ourselves
Stage 1 - Reaction to punishment - pain avoidance
Stage 2 - Seeking of rewards - praise, candy, trip to a movie
2. Conventional Level:
- child learns the importance of conforming to norms of society
Stage 3 - Good boy/nice girl morality - rewards such as feelings of warmth, loyalty acceptance from family & peers
Stage 4 - Law and order morality - certain norms are expected in society - individual sees himself as part of a larger social system
3. Postconventional Level:
- a more advanced notion of right or wrong than that which is conventionally articulated
- moral principles are internalized, seen as "right"
- focus is on humanity as a whole
- f.
Due Week 8 and worth 200 pointsIn preparation for this assignmen.docxshandicollingwood
Due Week 8 and worth 200 points
In preparation for this assignment, please view the Jurisville scenarios and resulting simulations from Weeks 5 through 7 in Unit 2: Courts.
In the scenarios and resulting simulations, Tim Smith, senior criminal lawyer, discusses select cases and asks a paralegal to indicate which courts would have exclusive jurisdiction of the cases in question. He also discusses various pretrial procedures and illustrates them with select cases. Finally, Tim Smith introduces the case of Roland Gary, who served twenty-three (23) years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. The case brought to light several key issues, along with the manner in which they were resolved.
Use the Internet to research three real-life cases from the past five (5) years that fit the following criteria:
Cases that depict the unique processes related to different courts
The defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial
The defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated
Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:
Discuss one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and identify the court that took jurisdiction. Explain why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances.
Discuss the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Give your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question. Provide a rationale for the response.
Discuss the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated. Explore one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large. Describe the resolution to the selected case.
Use at least three (3) quality resources in this assignment.
Note:
Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
Summarize the current ethical issues faced by criminal justice professionals and future of the criminal justice system.
Explain the development of American courts and illustrate the concept of the dual-court system.
Distinguish between the various courtroom participants, and describe the stages in a criminal trial.
Use technology and information resources to research issues in criminal justice.
Write clearly and concisely about criminal justice using proper writing mechanics and AP.
Chapter 3Evaluating Moral ArgumentsWhat Is Moral Reasoning.docxwalterl4
Chapter 3
Evaluating Moral Arguments
What Is Moral Reasoning?
Moral reasoningis ordinary critical reasoning applied to ethics.
Critical reasoning(also called critical thinking) is the careful, systematic evaluation of statementsand arguments.
Statements
A statement(or claim) is the assertion that something is either true or false. The following are examples of statements:“Murder is wrong.”“1 + 1 = 2”“Shakespeare wrote The Tempest.”
Statements and Arguments –1
When at least one statement attempts to provide reasons for believing another statement, we have an argument—a group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest.
Statements and Arguments –2
The supporting statements are called premises.
The statement that is being supported by the others is the conclusion.
Identifying ArgumentsAn argumentis intended to prove something.All arguments share a pattern: at least one premise is required to support a conclusion.A cluster of unsupported claims is not an argument.The most reliable way to identify arguments is to look for the conclusion first.Look for indicator words:terms that often appear in arguments and signal that a premise or conclusion may be nearby.
Some words indicating a conclusion:
Therefore, consequently, hence, it follows that, thus, so, it must be thatSome words indicating a premise:
Because, since, for, given that, due to the fact that, for the reason that, the reason being, assuming that, as indicated by
Two Forms of Argument
A deductive argumentis supposed to give logically conclusivesupport to its conclusion.
An inductive argumentis supposed to offer probablesupport to its conclusion.
Common Deductive Argument FormsValid forms:Denying the antecedentAffirming the consequent Invalid forms:Affirming the antecedent(modus ponens)Denying the consequent(modus tollens)The hypothetical syllogism
Deductive Arguments
A deductive argument isvalidif the premises support the conclusion. That is, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
A deductive argument is invalidif the premises do not support the conclusion. That is, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion may or may not be true.
A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true.
A deductive argument is unsound if it is invalid and/or any of its premises are false.
Inductive Arguments
An inductive argument is strongif it gives probable support to its conclusion. That is, if its premises are true, its conclusion is also likely to be true.
An inductive argument is weak if it does not give probable support to its conclusion. That is, if its premises are true, its conclusion is not more probable than not to be true.
An inductive argument is cogentif it is strong and all of its premises are true.
An inductive argument is not cogent if it is weakand/or any of.
BUSI 561Case Presentation InstructionsYou will complete one Ca.docxhumphrieskalyn
BUSI 561
Case Presentation Instructions
You will complete one Case Presentation during the course, based on cases that have been summarized in the book. You should go to LexisNexis and read the complete case, which will give you more details of both parties’ positions, as well as links to related law. Decide between you and your “opposing counsel” who will represent which party, and then present your position to the class.
Your presentation should follow the general IRAC or Law + Facts = Conclusion analysis format we discussed in the first class. Include:
· What court are you in and how did you get there? (almost all of the cases we discuss are decided by an appeals court, but were initially heard at a trial level court – explain that path for your case)
· I = What is the major issue related to this chapter that is examined in this case? Note: most cases decide more than one issue. Focus on/analyze only the issue(s) related to the chapters we are reading this week.
· R = What is the relevant law? Is it a statute? Regulation? Federal or state? Is it case precedent? Some combination (case precedent interpreting a statute)?
· What are the key facts, i.e., the “legally relevant facts” needed to meet the elements of the law? What facts best support your position?
· AC = Apply the law to the facts in a way that reaches a conclusion that would decide the case for your position. That necessarily means that one of you will be arguing for an outcome that the court did not hold; explain that position well enough for the class to discuss.
· How would your position be fair and equitable? How may it move the law forward and provide a new or better rule? These are what we call “policy” arguments – not directly related to the law, but additional arguments for the court and society to consider.
· How does your position comport with a Biblical worldview?
There is no time limit (minimum or maximum), but I will budget about half an hour for the case (both presentations plus class discussion). You may present your case in any way that helps the class understand your position.
Each case presentation is worth 100 points:
Completeness
75
Analysis
25
Total
100
Case Presentation Score
Your presentation should follow the general IRAC or Law + Facts = Conclusion analysis format we discussed in the first class. Include:
What court are you in and how did you get there? (almost all of the cases we discuss are decided by an appeals court, but were initially heard at a trial level court – explain that path for your case)
Venue
What is the major issue in this case?
Issue
What is the relevant law? Is it a statute? Regulation? Federal or state? Is it case precedent? Some combination (case precedent interpreting a statute)?
Rule of law
What are the key facts, i.e., the “legally relevant facts” needed to meet the elements of the law? What facts best support your position?
Facts
Apply the law to the facts in a way that decides the case for you ...
Chapter 3Evaluating Moral ArgumentsWhat Is Moral Reasoning.docxwalterl4
Chapter 3
Evaluating Moral Arguments
What Is Moral Reasoning?
Moral reasoningis ordinary critical reasoning applied to ethics.
Critical reasoning(also called critical thinking) is the careful, systematic evaluation of statementsand arguments.
Statements
A statement(or claim) is the assertion that something is either true or false. The following are examples of statements:“Murder is wrong.”“1 + 1 = 2”“Shakespeare wrote The Tempest.”
Statements and Arguments –1
When at least one statement attempts to provide reasons for believing another statement, we have an argument—a group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest.
Statements and Arguments –2
The supporting statements are called premises.
The statement that is being supported by the others is the conclusion.
Identifying ArgumentsAn argumentis intended to prove something.All arguments share a pattern: at least one premise is required to support a conclusion.A cluster of unsupported claims is not an argument.The most reliable way to identify arguments is to look for the conclusion first.Look for indicator words:terms that often appear in arguments and signal that a premise or conclusion may be nearby.
Some words indicating a conclusion:
Therefore, consequently, hence, it follows that, thus, so, it must be thatSome words indicating a premise:
Because, since, for, given that, due to the fact that, for the reason that, the reason being, assuming that, as indicated by
Two Forms of Argument
A deductive argumentis supposed to give logically conclusivesupport to its conclusion.
An inductive argumentis supposed to offer probablesupport to its conclusion.
Common Deductive Argument FormsValid forms:Denying the antecedentAffirming the consequent Invalid forms:Affirming the antecedent(modus ponens)Denying the consequent(modus tollens)The hypothetical syllogism
Deductive Arguments
A deductive argument isvalidif the premises support the conclusion. That is, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
A deductive argument is invalidif the premises do not support the conclusion. That is, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion may or may not be true.
A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true.
A deductive argument is unsound if it is invalid and/or any of its premises are false.
Inductive Arguments
An inductive argument is strongif it gives probable support to its conclusion. That is, if its premises are true, its conclusion is also likely to be true.
An inductive argument is weak if it does not give probable support to its conclusion. That is, if its premises are true, its conclusion is not more probable than not to be true.
An inductive argument is cogentif it is strong and all of its premises are true.
An inductive argument is not cogent if it is weakand/or any of.
BUSI 561Case Presentation InstructionsYou will complete one Ca.docxhumphrieskalyn
BUSI 561
Case Presentation Instructions
You will complete one Case Presentation during the course, based on cases that have been summarized in the book. You should go to LexisNexis and read the complete case, which will give you more details of both parties’ positions, as well as links to related law. Decide between you and your “opposing counsel” who will represent which party, and then present your position to the class.
Your presentation should follow the general IRAC or Law + Facts = Conclusion analysis format we discussed in the first class. Include:
· What court are you in and how did you get there? (almost all of the cases we discuss are decided by an appeals court, but were initially heard at a trial level court – explain that path for your case)
· I = What is the major issue related to this chapter that is examined in this case? Note: most cases decide more than one issue. Focus on/analyze only the issue(s) related to the chapters we are reading this week.
· R = What is the relevant law? Is it a statute? Regulation? Federal or state? Is it case precedent? Some combination (case precedent interpreting a statute)?
· What are the key facts, i.e., the “legally relevant facts” needed to meet the elements of the law? What facts best support your position?
· AC = Apply the law to the facts in a way that reaches a conclusion that would decide the case for your position. That necessarily means that one of you will be arguing for an outcome that the court did not hold; explain that position well enough for the class to discuss.
· How would your position be fair and equitable? How may it move the law forward and provide a new or better rule? These are what we call “policy” arguments – not directly related to the law, but additional arguments for the court and society to consider.
· How does your position comport with a Biblical worldview?
There is no time limit (minimum or maximum), but I will budget about half an hour for the case (both presentations plus class discussion). You may present your case in any way that helps the class understand your position.
Each case presentation is worth 100 points:
Completeness
75
Analysis
25
Total
100
Case Presentation Score
Your presentation should follow the general IRAC or Law + Facts = Conclusion analysis format we discussed in the first class. Include:
What court are you in and how did you get there? (almost all of the cases we discuss are decided by an appeals court, but were initially heard at a trial level court – explain that path for your case)
Venue
What is the major issue in this case?
Issue
What is the relevant law? Is it a statute? Regulation? Federal or state? Is it case precedent? Some combination (case precedent interpreting a statute)?
Rule of law
What are the key facts, i.e., the “legally relevant facts” needed to meet the elements of the law? What facts best support your position?
Facts
Apply the law to the facts in a way that decides the case for you ...
Similar to Justice - Based on Honesty Idioms Set 2.pptx (7)
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic ImperativePeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
2. 2
Objectives
• Review and practice the Honesty Idioms Set 2
Use them in a related activity
• Speak about your personal experience
• Vocabulary
• Read a passage about Justice and Honesty and answer true and false
questions
• Reflect on your learning today
3. 3
Review the idioms
in this related lesson
https://livelearn.ca/lessons/language-training/honesty-idioms-2/
4. 4
Review the idioms in this related lesson
“To play by the rules” – to behave in a fair and honest way
“A monkey business”– an activity organised in a deceitful or dishonest way
“a daylight robbery” – used when the price of something is thought to be much too
high
“as crooked as a dog’s hind leg”– very dishonest indeed
“fair and square” – in an honest and open manner, respecting the rules
7. 7
Speak about your personal experience
Share an experience when you or someone you know
did not play by the rules. What happened?
Did you/they get away with it?
9. 9
to stand for (phr vb.) ethical (adj.)
to stretch the truth (phr.) outcome( n.)
to distinguish (vb.) prosecution (n.)
1. relating to moral principles
2. the way a thing turns out; a consequence
3. an attitude toward a particular issue; a position
taken in an argument.
4. the institution and conducting of legal
proceedings against someone in respect of a
criminal charge.
5. perceive or point out a difference
6. to say something that is not exactly true
10. 10
to stand for (phr vb.) ethical (adj.)
to stretch the truth (phr.) outcome( n.)
to distinguish (vb.) prosecution (n.)
1. relating to moral principles ethical
2. the way a thing turns out; a consequence
3. an attitude toward a particular issue; a position
taken in an argument.
4. the institution and conducting of legal
proceedings against someone in respect of a
criminal charge.
5. perceive or point out a difference
6. to say something that is not exactly true
11. 11
to stand for (phr vb.) ethical (adj.)
to stretch the truth (phr.) outcome( n.)
to distinguish (vb.) prosecution (n.)
1. relating to moral principles ethical
2. the way a thing turns out; a consequence outcome
3. an attitude toward a particular issue; a position
taken in an argument.
4. the institution and conducting of legal
proceedings against someone in respect of a
criminal charge.
5. perceive or point out a difference
6. to say something that is not exactly true
12. 12
to stand for (phr vb.) ethical (adj.)
to stretch the truth (phr.) outcome( n.)
to distinguish (vb.) prosecution (n.)
1. relating to moral principles ethical
2. the way a thing turns out; a consequence outcome
3. an attitude toward a particular issue; a position
taken in an argument.
to stand for
4. the institution and conducting of legal
proceedings against someone in respect of a
criminal charge.
5. perceive or point out a difference
6. to say something that is not exactly true
13. 13
to stand for (phr vb.) ethical (adj.)
to stretch the truth (phr.) outcome( n.)
to distinguish (vb.) prosecution (n.)
1. relating to moral principles ethical
2. the way a thing turns out; a consequence outcome
3. an attitude toward a particular issue; a position
taken in an argument.
to stand for
4. the institution and conducting of legal
proceedings against someone in respect of a
criminal charge.
prosecution
5. perceive or point out a difference
6. to say something that is not exactly true
14. 14
to stand for (phr vb.) ethical (adj.)
to stretch the truth (phr.) outcome( n.)
to distinguish (vb.) prosecution (n.)
1. relating to moral principles ethical
2. the way a thing turns out; a consequence outcome
3. an attitude toward a particular issue; a position
taken in an argument.
to stand for
4. the institution and conducting of legal
proceedings against someone in respect of a
criminal charge.
prosecution
5. perceive or point out a difference to distinguish
6. to say something that is not exactly true
15. 15
to stand for (phr vb.) ethical (adj.)
to stretch the truth (phr.) outcome( n.)
to distinguish (vb.) prosecution (n.)
1. relating to moral principles ethical
2. the way a thing turns out; a consequence outcome
3. an attitude toward a particular issue; a position
taken in an argument.
to stand for
4. the institution and conducting of legal
proceedings against someone in respect of a
criminal charge.
prosecution
5. perceive or point out a difference to distinguish
6. to say something that is not exactly true to stretch the truth
17. 17
Justice and Honesty
Read the following passage and answer some True/False questions.
Honesty and Justice are words that describe integrity and character of an individual.
The word “honesty” by its virtue, describes an individual or an entity that doesn’t lie,
cheat, steal of abuse to get ahead for personal or professional gain. When the individual
is honest, they stand for what is right and look for a positive outcome. “Justice” is the
entity that we depend on as a country and a community to distinguish between right
and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal.
Justice is what we depend on to keep us safe from harm to live a better life. In the
criminal justice system there are many ethical issues involved in honesty and justice.
Sometimes justice isn’t so honest and individuals make certain decisions that are not
ethical , which causes issues and problems for many people. For example, lawyers lie
or stretch the truth many times to plea their defendant’s cases by redirecting
the focus point on what the prosecution is trying to prove.
Source: https://lawaspect.com/honesty-justice-criminal-justice-system/
18. 18
Justice and Honesty
Read the following passage and answer some True/False questions.
1. Honesty and Justice are words that describe integrity and
character of an individual.
2. To be honest means to lie, cheat, steal of abuse.
3. Justice” is the entity that we depend on as a country and a
community to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal.
4. Justice is always honest.
5. Lawyers lie or stretch the truth many times to plea their defendant’s cases.
19. 19
Justice and Honesty
Read the following passage and answer some True/False questions.
1. Honesty and Justice are words that describe integrity and
character of an individual. True
2. To be honest means to lie, cheat, steal of abuse.
3. Justice” is the entity that we depend on as a country and a
community to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal.
4. Justice is always honest.
5. Lawyers lie or stretch the truth many times to plea their defendant’s cases.
20. 20
Justice and Honesty
Read the following passage and answer some True/False questions.
1. Honesty and Justice are words that describe integrity and
character of an individual. True
2. To be honest means to lie, cheat, steal of abuse. False
3. Justice” is the entity that we depend on as a country and a
community to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal.
4. Justice is always honest.
5. Lawyers lie or stretch the truth many times to plea their defendant’s cases.
21. 21
Justice and Honesty
Read the following passage and answer some True/False questions.
1. Honesty and Justice are words that describe integrity and
character of an individual. True
2. To be honest means to lie, cheat, steal of abuse. False
3. Justice” is the entity that we depend on as a country and a
community to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal. True
4. Justice is always honest.
5. Lawyers lie or stretch the truth many times to plea their defendant’s cases.
22. 22
Justice and Honesty
Read the following passage and answer some True/False questions.
1. Honesty and Justice are words that describe integrity and
character of an individual. True
2. To be honest means to lie, cheat, steal of abuse. False
3. Justice” is the entity that we depend on as a country and a
community to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal. True
4. Justice is always honest. False
5. Lawyers lie or stretch the truth many times to plea their defendant’s cases.
23. 23
Justice and Honesty
Read the following passage and answer some True/False questions.
1. Honesty and Justice are words that describe integrity and
character of an individual. True
2. To be honest means to lie, cheat, steal of abuse. False
3. Justice” is the entity that we depend on as a country and a
community to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal. True
4. Justice is always honest. False
5. Lawyers lie or stretch the truth many times to plea their defendant’s cases. True
25. 25
What did you learn today?
• Review and practice the Honesty Idioms Set 2
Use them in a related activity
• Speak about your personal experience
• Vocabulary
• Read a passage about Justice and Honesty and answer
true and false questions
• Reflect on your learning today
26. 26
Homework
Record yourself speaking for 2-3 minutes about what Honesty and Justice mean to you.
Try to use at least two idioms that you learned.
Send the audio file to your instructor.
27. Thankyou!
Questions?
Created by : Ruxandra Nicolescu – English Online
27
https://pixabay.com/photos/cup-of-coffee-laptop-office-macbook-1280537/ shared under CC0