My chosen task is the Jeremy case study, which I will discuss and evaluate using different ethical perspectives. First, from a contextualist perspective, the teacher's decision not to punish Phillip for hitting Jeremy can be seen as justifiable. Indeed, the context of the incident was that Jeremy had provoked Phillip to the point that Phillip acted in a way that is described as out of character. As Jeremy is known as a student who causes low-level disruption, it can be argued that Phillip's retaliation was actually in everyone's best interest. It is obviously difficult to justify one child hitting another; however, the fact that Jeremy calmly continued his work suggests that the punch did not hurt very much or even that he felt he deserved to be punched. Additionally, the teacher can be seen as right not to act when Phillip hit Jeremy because it was morally right. This is consistent with Buzzelli and Johnston's belief that “teaching itself involves moral action” and that “teachers are moral agents.” This agrees with Homan who said that “ethics is the science of morality”. So, while taking these theories into account, the teacher's lack of acknowledgment (of Phillip's behavior) can be considered ethical, as it was morally correct for the extremely provoked child to fight back. On the other hand, it can be debated that it is never morally right to hit another person, regardless of the situation. To this, it should be noted that everyone's moral code is different and that, in this scenario, the fact that the teacher considers that Jérémie receives a blow on the shoulder is justifiable because it prevents him from disrupting, cannot not be considered irrefutably right or wrong. More generally, middle of paper...... uh, at that point a different student might hit Jeremy provocatively because he thought Phillip hadn't been punished. The teacher's lack of response to the question The situation could be seen as justified, from a consequentialist point of view, as the end (Jeremiah quietly continuing his work) justifies the means (Phillip hitting Jeremy). However, the negative consequences of other students perhaps recognizing that Phillip was not punished for hitting Jeremy (creating the idea that they can hit anyone who provokes them) might suggest otherwise. Furthermore, the same could be said for the teacher not intervening at all, even when the disruption occurs. If the teacher had intervened, it would (arguably) have avoided the situation, but (at the same time) it would also have meant giving Jeremy the attention he perhaps desires; as well as disrupting the whole class.