Especially in ethics, we must practice a way of treating issues that acknowledges their complexities and dilemma-like quality. The standard that does this best is called depth (Paul & Elder). In our course I expect this standard to be on display and in action. According to Paul & Elder we think deeply about an issue when we get beneath the surface...identify the complexities..., and then deal with those complexities in a...responsible way" (Paul & Elder). An example, suppose one of your colleagues justifies the death penalty with this statement: ,, I believe in an eye for an eye. If you take a life, you lose yours." Does this pass the test of depth? Why/why not? How could the issue be dealt with more responsibly?