My favourite assignments at University were always presentations; not just because I'm a fairly confident speaker - but I think audience feedback is vital for when you need to speed up/slow down on an explanation of a concept.  Sometimes (especially with complicated literature) the "known concepts" can be overly explained so much, that by the time you get to a concept that you are unfamiliar with - you're tricked into not knowing the original concept.  It's very confusing (as the previous is a perfect example of it).

One of my favourite theories is the following:

Fine and Ulrich (1988) postulated that ethics was made up of four 'layers:'





This model suggests that each layer above is derived from the concepts founded underneath.  Two example frameworks are:

Utilitarianism - the ends justify the means as long as the 'greater good' benefits.

Deontology - every stage is an 'end' and not a means.

Whilst the immediate application of these two frameworks may not be immediately self-explanatory, I often use these four layers of ethics to try and understand where my ethical beliefs come from.  I'm going to try and do an analysis in the comments, but if you fancy it yourself - I'd love to see how other people can use this framework to see at which 'step' peoples' interpretations most differ.