Free Essays on Elementary Dispute

Elementary schools all around the nation are a significant part of a young child’s life. My laws and rights are posed in schools, which may satisfy or dissatisfy people involved in the schools. It is crucial that in situations of controversies, individuals are basing their opinions and views towards the influence it has most importantly on the young child’s life that is being educated and is experiencing and adjusting to the many restrictions and rules to the particular school. Schools are readily stressing on the rights and laws that are enforced by the local county or state instead of basing more importance on how it will affect parents, teachers, and students who play a crucial part in the schools itself. The most obvious reason principals and teachers have not abided by the state codes is because most of them are unnecessary and are easily overseen due to the fact that it will not help, but yet it will negatively affect the students, teachers, and parents. The Comal County fire marshal recently inspected that the New Braunfels elementary school has violated a state fire code that has been overseen and not practiced. There is no significance or need for all schools in Texas to have to abide by the particular state fire code of limiting and removing the majority of the student artwork, instructional posters, and decorative items from walls, desks, boards, etc. to only twenty percent due to the fact it will affect children’s grades by dropping, less students will attend, and conflicts will arise between parents, children, and teachers. Children are young and quickly learn when they are in elementary schools. Their mind is fresh and creative and limiting the amount of work they can show off in school will alter their grades by dropping tremendously. Children in the schools will be morose because the hard work and effort they put into projects, artwork, papers, and drawings are not shown off on the board. Only a limit... Free Essays on Elementary Dispute Free Essays on Elementary Dispute Elementary schools all around the nation are a significant part of a young child’s life. My laws and rights are posed in schools, which may satisfy or dissatisfy people involved in the schools. It is crucial that in situations of controversies, individuals are basing their opinions and views towards the influence it has most importantly on the young child’s life that is being educated and is experiencing and adjusting to the many restrictions and rules to the particular school. Schools are readily stressing on the rights and laws that are enforced by the local county or state instead of basing more importance on how it will affect parents, teachers, and students who play a crucial part in the schools itself. The most obvious reason principals and teachers have not abided by the state codes is because most of them are unnecessary and are easily overseen due to the fact that it will not help, but yet it will negatively affect the students, teachers, and parents. The Comal County fire marshal recently inspected that the New Braunfels elementary school has violated a state fire code that has been overseen and not practiced. There is no significance or need for all schools in Texas to have to abide by the particular state fire code of limiting and removing the majority of the student artwork, instructional posters, and decorative items from walls, desks, boards, etc. to only twenty percent due to the fact it will affect children’s grades by dropping, less students will attend, and conflicts will arise between parents, children, and teachers. Children are young and quickly learn when they are in elementary schools. Their mind is fresh and creative and limiting the amount of work they can show off in school will alter their grades by dropping tremendously. Children in the schools will be morose because the hard work and effort they put into projects, artwork, papers, and drawings are not shown off on the board. Only a limit...

Saving Private Ryan Essay

Saving Private Ryan Essay Saving Private Ryan Essay Saving Private Ryan EssayThe first paragraph of a Saving Private Ryan essay should spell out the main purpose or thesis behind the essay. To do this you should familiarize yourself with the original source by:Reading in and around the textReading of literary reviewsBy watching the film a few times. Once you are familiar with the source, brainstorm before asking yourself the following questions and writing the outline of your essay:According to you is Saving Private Ryan all about exposing the ugly face of war-instead of glorifying it?Do you think there is a very real misrepresentation of life due to the fact that the role that women played in the war has been entirely ignored?Is the theme of Saving Private Ryan anti-war or anti-women?Your Saving Private Ryan essay should comment on the fact that this is a film in which Women appear, only very briefly, as mothers, wives, typists (Gans). In that sense does Saving Private Ryan give an accurate picture of the Second World War in whic h the pivotal role of women has long been recognized? (It is a well known fact that women took over the day to day running of the country at a time when most of the men were away at war)-so does Saving Private Ryan give a faulty view that implies that men were largely responsible for saving our country and that women had a very limited role to play as housewives and typists?Your Saving Private Ryan essay should also draw attention to the fact that Graham is trying to show us what the frontlines of war are really like; as he focuses on the slaughter and mayhem of the D-Day landing on Omaha Beach and we witness horrific scenes of a soldier picking up his own arm, an injured soldiers guts spilling out, or a legless soldier trying to crawl with the help of his arms.Graham does not spare the viewers the horrors of war but in the process feminists feel that he is passing a comment on the insignificance of women by keeping completely silent about their role Women are virtually absent from Private Ryan, and they appear only in a soft-focus montage of breasts and lapping waves (Goldstein). These are some of the aspects your Saving Private Ryan essay can touch on.

Intervention paper( group therapy) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Intervention paper( group therapy) - Essay Example You can start to tell the child that they have the ability to create their own lives. They learn that there are choices and perspectives that they will learn to make and see. They are filled with a self-determination to make them do what they need to do and to find a way or they may find that they have the ability in how we make the interpretations they need to make in the situations, events, and relationships they make in their lives. The therapist will show the child how to make those interpretations and decisions in a more socially appropriate manner. You can tell the children that their actions have consequences. You can teach encouragement and cooperation so the child can learn proper motivation and to have a better understanding of themselves. This is a chance to let the child or children get to know each other and begin to interact with each other. It is a time to ask questions and hopefully get answers and be able to share their feelings of what is going to happen while in the group. It is a chance to express and teach the rules of the group. This could also be the time to show them (the children) around the therapeutic playroom to show that it is a safe place to express themselves in many different ways like art, music and dramatic play activities to let them feel empowered to be themselves and to be comfortable, which is the main thing so they will tell their stories. The child has the power in these sessions. In this first step this is when rapport is being built and building encouragement. Step 1- Giving Instructions-- Give each of the children a pencil or crayons and several sheets of paper. You can ask them to draw a picture of everyone in their family for you. You can tell them that the family members must be doing something and they should be whole people and not stick people. Give them gentle reminders of these rules as the activity continues. Step 2- Drawing-- While the children are drawing their

Business Management And Leadership - Leading (U4GP) Essay - 1

Business Management And Leadership - Leading (U4GP) - Essay Example ht to ensure that measures were taken which would prevent as far as possible a recurrence of the problem; and they showed themselves to be prepared to bear the short term cost in the name of consumer safety. That more than anything else established a basis for trust with their customers.† Still, more could have been done to prevent the issue or better manage the crisis. The biggest problem on Johnson & Johnson’s side was a design flaw in the pills that were contaminated: they were capsules. The capsules could be broken apart and put back together, which allowed for tampering on store shelves. Even though the tampering was not their fault, the responsibility for the safe design of the pills rested on their shoulders. Another problem was that the packages were not safety sealed where tampering could be easily detected. Had Johnson & Johnson fixed these designed flaws when the first crisis occurred in 1982, the second one may never have come to pass. Better research and development along these lines would have helped them better manage the crisis. Perpetrators are always looking for new ways to commit their crimes, so Johnson & Johnson must continuously be prepared for new ways of tampering to occur. This is especially true with the advent of new technologies that could possibly allow for even the most seemingly tamper-resistant packaging to be breached or for false packages to be placed on shelves in order to fool unknowing consumers. Essentially, the company needs to stay on its toes and carefully consider the different ways in which tampering could possibly occur with their different products in order to protect itself from both internal and external product contamination cases. Furthermore, Johnson & Johnson should always keep its employees informed about how to spot potential dangers and give them a protocol to follow in case they occur. Just because they made it through the first round of crises with flying colors does not mean that they could

Algoeithm Design, Analysis and Implementation Assignment

Algoeithm Design, Analysis and Implementation - Assignment Example This is done by choosing a comparison element and placing all the elements that are less than the comparison element in the first group and the rest of the elements in the second group. This procedure is repeated recursively until the elements are sorted (a part consist of only one element). T(n) = (n-1) + ?1 ? i ? n ti As 1,2,....k-elements are already sorted, we can say that ti =0, where i = 1,2, 3... k. Then, the contribution of quick sort when early stopping is used can be given by, T(n)=(n+1)( ?k ? i ? n ti + ?(1)) = (n+1)( n lg +?(1)) =2n lg +?(n) Thus, T(n) for quick sort =O(nlg(n/k)). Given that, insertion sort is done on a partially sorted array (unsorted k-elements). In general, running time of insertion sort is O(n2 ), where n is the length of the array (total number of elements). In order to provide a solution to this problem, the total array is divided into subarrays of k-elements each, such that k/2? n ? k, then n = O(k) and the running time of insertion sort is O(k2). The total number of such subarrays (m) would then be n/k ? m ? 2n/k., which implies m = O(n/k). The total time spent on insertion sort would then be O(k2)* O(n/k) = O(nk). T(n) for insertion sort = O(nk). Therefore, the total time for this sorting algorithm is as follows: T(n) = O(nk + nlg(n/k) ). ... Solution: From the above problem (1), we find that quick sort sorts k-elements of an n-element array O(n log(n/k)) time. Quick sort sorts by partitioning the given array A[p...r] into two sub-arrays A[p...q] and A[q+1... r] such that every element in A[p...q] is less than, or equal to, elements in A[q+1... r]. This process is repeated until all the elements are sorted. Algorithm for quick sort is given by: A[P] is the pivot key upon which the comparison is made. P is chosen as the median value of the array at each step. If the element is less than, or equal to, the pivot key value, it is moved left. Otherwise, it is moved right. Assuming the best case scenario where each step produces two equal partitions, then T(n)=T(n/2)+T(n/2)+?(n) =2T(n/2)+ ?(n) By Master’s Theorem case 2, T(n) = O(n lg n) In other words, the depth of recursion is log n and at each level/step, the number of elements to be treated is n. If only k-elements are sorted, then the depth of recursion would be n/k and the number of elements would be n at each level, the time taken by this sorting algorithm is given by T(n) = O(n lg (n/k)). 2.2 Show that we can sort a k-well-sorted array of length n in O(n log k) time. As the array is already sorted for k-elements, the remaining steps required to complete the sort would be k (using the results from 1), then T(n) = O(n lg k). 3. Computing the k-th smallest element in the union of the two lists m and n using O(lg m +lg n) time algorithm: Approach 1: Merge sort can be used in this case. It splits the list into two halves, recursively sorts each half, and then merges the two sorted sub-lists. In the given problem, the lists are already sorted; hence, the

Nineteen Eighty-four and People Essay Example for Free

Nineteen Eighty-four and People Essay Imagine living in a world where politics are everything and all forms of individuality and personal identities are shattered. A world where everybody is stripped of their rights to talk, act, think, or even form their own opinions, simply because they do not agree with the government’s beliefs. These aspects are just a few of the examples of things dictators would have control over in a totalitarianism form of government. Aggressive leaders such as Hitler and Joseph Stalin are examples of such dictators. They used their power for terror and murder, and their motive is simply to maximize their own personal power. George Orwell had witnessed World War II, the fall of Hitler and Stalin’s dictatorships, and the fatal outcomes that have come from these governments. To warn future generations of the harsh effects of totalitarianism governments, he wrote the book Nineteen Eighty-Four. Published in 1946, Nineteen Eighty-Four describes life in a totalitarianism form of government, following the main character, Winston Smith, as he takes risks in discovering how he believes life should truly be. Literary critic Irving Howe states, â€Å"Were it possible, in the world of 1984, to show human character in anything resembling genuine freedom it would not be the world of 1984† (62). In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government uses its power to suppress individuality among the people. To begin, the author shows how the government abolishes individuality through the use of mind control. First of all, the creation of Newspeak restricts the individual from saying things that he/she wishes to say. More specifically, the task of the Party’s philologists is to regulate the vocabulary and language of Oceania to ultimately be able to control the actions and behaviors of the people. Literary critic Stephen Ingle argues, â€Å"The more vocabulary contracts, the more the Party will be able to control behavior† (124). Since the Party has complete control over how the people can talk and what they are allowed to say, they ultimately have the power to control how they act. Through Newspeak, thoughtcrime will become impossible due to the fact that there will be no terms in which to express it. Furthermore, the Party asserts its control over the mind through doublethink. To begin, doublethink is an example of a thought process in which one simultaneously holds two contradictory beliefs while accepting both of them. For example, while in the Ministry of Love, O’Brien uses doublethink to make Winston believe that he can float. Winston says, â€Å"If he thinks he floats off the floor and I simultaneously think I see him do it, then it happens† (Orwell 278). O’Brien cannot float, however through the use of doublethink Winston can say that it does happen. Moreover, the Party also uses thoughtcrime to regulate the people’s thoughts, speech, actions, and feelings towards the government. The Thought Police use psychology and surveillance such as hidden telescreens to discover cases of thoughtcrime and misbehavior. For instance, a telescreen hidden behind a picture on the wall in Winston and Julia’s secret hideout is the reason they are caught in their illegal love affair. Winston describes, â€Å"Thoughtcrime does not entail death: Thoughtcrime IS death† (Orwell 27). Winston is saying that death is definite if one thinks badly about the government or disapproves of the government’s actions. Thus, due to telescreens, people are forced to keep an expression of optimism at all times; because any other emotion will be considered treason (Ingle 127). Consequently, individuality among the people is destroyed through mind control. In addition to mind control, Orwell also illustrates how the government strips the people of their personal identities though their control over reality. To begin, the party uses its power over Oceania’s history to eliminate all records of the past in order to create a future entirely dedicated to politics. Winston states, â€Å"History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. I know, of course, that the past is falsified, but it would never be possible for me to prove it† (Orwell 155). The Party has complete control over the history of Oceania, and they choose to delete any and all traces of the past, such as memories. Additionally, the Party uses their control over memories to minimize individuality in the people of Oceania. More specifically, the Party seeks to control the memory of the people because without memory, they cannot remember the past. They remove all documents and records of the past through their memory holes. It is one’s memories that keep the past existing and that shape their lives (Ingle 123). The Party succeeds in abolishing the past by restricting the memories of the people. Moreover, the government reduces individuality with their perceptions of logic. In Oceania, whatever the Party says is correct is correct. If one does not agree with what the Party says, he/she is considered insane; a flaw in the system. To explain, when Winston is taken to the Ministry of Love, they torture him-physically and emotionally to make him accept the logic of the Party. Powerful party member O’Brien explains to Winston that their logic is correct, regardless of what Winston knows is right. O’Brien implores, â€Å"Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane† (Orwell 207). O’Brien is saying that the government has the ability to alter aspects of their lives that Winston knows are the real thing; however he has no choice but to accept them. He is considered â€Å"insane† because he knows what is right and what is wrong and is hesitant to believe that the Party’s logic is true. Noted critic Stephen Ingle implies, â€Å"Winston conjectures that in the end the Party would declare that two plus two made five and the individual would be required to believe it† (122). In the future, there will be no other types of logic other that what the Party deems to be true. Thus, the government uses its power to control all aspects of reality for the people of Oceania. Equally important to mind control and reality, Orwell also shows how the government’s control over the people’s emotions suppresses their individuality. To begin, the Party extinguishes all forms of pure love among the people. More specifically, if two people wish to get married, they must be approved. If they wish to marry out of love and affection, they will be denied. In the eyes of the Party, marriage must be handled like business-only to produce offspring that will be loyal to them. Winston implores, â€Å"But you could not have pure love or pure lust nowadays. No emotion was pure, because everything was mixed up with fear and hatred† (Orwell 105). Every aspect of the people’s lives in Oceania is robotic and systematic, there are no true emotions. Similarly to the Party’s control over love, they also control sex between the people. To explain, the Party believes that there should not be any pleasure from sex; it should only be used in order to reproduce. The people who are faithful to the party transform their sexual energy into political hysteria (Howe 65). All of their energy goes towards the Two Minutes Hate and their hatred for Big Brother in order to bring some form of unity amongst them. Furthermore, the Party also uses emotional torture to abolish individuality. To justify, when Winston is in the Ministry of Love, he endures not only physical torture but psychological torture as well. He says, â€Å"In the end the nagging voices broke him down more completely than the boats and fists of the guards† (Orwell 200). The emotional torture from the questioning Winston undergoes wears him down and makes him into a mouth that simply utters what he believes they want to hear. The questioners transform him into something that is not even human anymore- merely just a robot. Literary expert Stephen Ingle argues that â€Å"the right and capacity to form one’s own judgment on external events†¦a full emotional life, a private world into which one could retire: those were the bastions of identity which Winston Smith sought to defend† (127). Winston is the last individual with knowledge of things outside of what the Party believes to be moral, and eventually he is stripped from that title and made into one of the other brain-washed citizens of Oceania. Consequently, the Party uses emotional torture to suppress individuality among the people. Hence, the government in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four has been proven to use their power to strip the citizens of their individuality. For instance, the Party uses their control to take over the minds of the people and restrict what they can/cannot say or do. Also, they have the power to control all records of the past, memories, and the logic they have placed in their society. If that is not enough, the Party also controls their emotions, regulates sex, and forces emotional torture among them to force their logic into their brains. Orwell is â€Å"trying to present the kind of world in which individuality has become obsolete and personality a crime† (Howe 62). Ultimately, if a society allows a dictatorship in which one person or a group of people have all the power over the citizens, the society will transform into an individualized group of robots.

Stem Cell Research and Utilitarianism

Stem Cell Research and Utilitarianism Janelle Akomah What if there was an opportunity to develop a cure for diabetes, HIV, or cancer? However, in order to achieve such a task, research and manipulation of embryonic cells are required. One may question the viability of the cells and if the embryos or fetuses are regarded as human lives. Stem cell research advances the knowledge about how an organism develops from a single cell and how healthy cells replace damaged cells in adult organisms. This paper will focus on the support of stem cell research and its importance in the future of medicine. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that and renew itself and differentiate to yield some or all major cell types of tissues or organs. The potential in regenerating or manipulating stem cells for future treatment of genetic conditions or chronic diseases is profound and is needed for treatment of medical conditions. Utilitarianism is the theory of justice that is supportive of stem cell research. The foundation of this theory is â€Å"the great est happiness† principle. The lives that can be saved are immeasurable. But what about the embryos and fetuses that are destroyed in the process? If embryos are considered lives, stem cell research can be essentially considered as murder. The primary objection that may apply is that utilitarianism makes no room for individual rights. Sacrificing the life of one to save millions may be worth it and this paper will state the major points of support for stem cell research. Stem Cell Research Controversy Stem cells are undifferentiated cells in tissue that serve as an internal repair system that divide to replenish other cells within the body. These cells are capable of renewing themselves through cell division and can divide and repair damaged or worn out tissue. Human embryonic stem cells are stem cells that are derived from human embryos. Stem cells are able to divide and renew themselves for a long period of time, unspecialized and can give rise to specialized cell types (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). Current research of stem cells includes controlling cell proliferation and differentiation through identification of how undifferentiated stem cells convert to differentiated cells that form the tissues and organs. Then controversy in stem cell research involves the creation, usage, and destruction of embryos. Creation of human embryo stem cell line requires destruction of the human embryo. At Harvard University, researchers attempted to transfer the nucleus of a somatic cell into an existing embryonic stem cell to create a new stem cell line. The ethical issue of manipulation and destruction of the human embryo and its stem cells center the debate on stem cell research. The pro-life movement is stemmed from the concern of the rights and status of the embryo as human life. Until recent years, stem cell research included removing tissue from an aborted embryo to get material to evaluate and study. Researchers are now reverting to obtain and manipulate pluripotent stem cells without th e use of embryos. In the past, ethical issues of scientific research on aborted fetuses did not justify medical benefits. Researchers began evaluating embryonic stem cells because they represent the earliest stage of later cell lineages and provide information on how development of tissues arise and treatments to cure or prevent chronic diseases (Robertson, 2010). Those against embryonic stem cell research believe that fertilized eggs used in the laboratory are human beings or individuals with rights, moral and legal statuses of fully born persons. These individuals view destruction of embryos as murder or a sacrifice of the weakest for the interest of others. Those that support stem cell research do not view embryos to have interests or rights and should not be protected at the cost of scientific research. They also do not believe that fetuses develop any neurological capacity to feel pain. Support of Stem Cell Research Stem cell research has the potential to save millions of lives and give a new start to those that may have been threatened by chronic and/or fatal conditions. The conditions considered for potential cures include spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. The possibility of reversing the effects of aging and prolonging life is beneficial for those who are interested. It may also increase the quality of life among many individuals. It is difficult to determine if embryonic stem cells are considered human life. So why not research the early stages of human development to facilitate medical advances for mankind? If we can improve the quality of life for individuals with chronic conditions by exploring the use of embryonic stem cells, why not research them? There can be a comparison of stem cell research of embryonic stem cells to that of individuals in the military. People are recruited, trained, and deployed to protect the country from harm or terror. In the end, it is all done for the greater good and to save lives. In stem cell research, embryonic stem cells are researched by manipulation or destruction to develop a stem cell line or cure for many progressive and fatal chronic conditions. This research is done to provide a line of defense against diseases that are harmful to the human being. When we look at the two examples, although different approaches, the overall goal is to protect the human race. I look at stem cell research as a way to protect human life against many harmful invaders that decrease the overall quality of life and may cause death. Utilitarianism It is known as the â€Å"greatest happiness† principle and utilitarianism argues that justice is maximizing individuals’ happiness and minimizing pain. John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, stated acts should be considered as morally right or wrong if the consequences are of significance that an individual would wish to act in a preferred manner (West, 2012). These actions support the greater good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism defines morality as the maximization of total net expectable utility for individuals affected by an action or decision. There were multiple philosophers of utilitarianism including John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Both philosophers proposed this theory as a form of consequentialism which states that consequences are the ultimate basis for judgment about right or wrong conduct. Bentham stated that every moral argument should draw on the idea of maximizing happiness (Sandel, 2009, pg 32). He notes that the highest principle of mora lity is to maximize happiness and the overall balance of pleasure over pain. Bentham argued that every moral argument should draw on maximizing happiness (Sandel, 2009, pg 32). It is the foundation of moral and political life. When there is a choice to be made between actions, utilitarianism’s theory states that the choice with the greatest utility is the right choice. Utilitarianism can definitely be applied to the controversial issue of embryonic stem cell research. Research of embryonic stem cells is conducted to develop cures and treatments of chronic conditions for the greater good of the human race. When we look at the overall goal and purpose of stem cell research, we can determine it as a morally right consequence. This is determined because the research is conducted in search of a cure for diseases and a treatment course that will increase an individual’s quality of life thus increasing their overall happiness. The definition of justice can be considered as granting each person what they are morally due. Is it not fair to grant each individual a maximization of life and the most quality of life available? Stem cell research seeks to uphold that goal by looking for answers to a growing issue. Many people succumb to chronic conditions for various reasons. If cures or treatment plans that prolong the lifespan are developed, many lives will be saved and healthcare expenditures can decline. The costs for maintenance of diseases such as diabetes, heart failure, Alzheimer’s disease would decrease because if cured, there will be no need for maintenance. The Objection There is no room for individual rights when utilitarianism is in place. This theory explains justice as saving the most lives. If we look at stem cell research and utilitarianism, then this objection can apply. If embryos used in stem cell research are considered the beginning of human life, then we look at individual rights. There are none. The rights of the embryos that are manipulated and destroyed are not taken into account when looking at the overall purpose of stem cell research. The supporter of this objection states that everyone is created equally and no one individual is better or is worth more than another. There is question on how the individual is treated under the theory of utilitarianism. Non-supporters of utilitarianism state that each individual is counted as one on an equal basis; however, it fails to respect the integrity of each person (Seehy, 2002). The objection states that the overall function of the treatment of individuals contribute to the greater good which in turn reflects impartiality. How can the individual rights of embryos/fetuses be taken into account if they are manipulated and destroyed for the goal of researching a cure for a chronic condition? Is it fair to play God and pick and choose which embryo or fetus will be chosen for research purposes? Another example in comparison to stem cell research includes the controversial issue of abortion. If an embryo/fetus is considered the beginning of human life, could we not consider the destruction of them as murder? How are the individual rights of these embryos taken into account? With utilitarianism, they are not beca use the benefits of research outweigh the risks and harm of that individual cell. Is this a fair statement? Is the sacrifice of few worth the greater good of many? Response to Objection Rule – utilitarianism is a term that determines the right or wrongness by finding the best rule of conduct followed by the majority of society (Seehy, 2002). John Mill attempted to respond to the objection mentioned above by presenting a rule and stating that individual liberties should be respected. He mentions that there is room for personal commitments without having to give up everything to help others. Maximizing utility in the long run by respecting individual liberties will lead to the greatest human happiness (Sandel, 2009, pg 47). Is happiness the only thing that matters in response to the objection? In stem cell research, is the only thing that is important is the potential number of lives that will be saved? Happiness is not the only issue when evaluating utilitarianism and stem cell research. Healthcare costs of treatment plans for chronic conditions continue to increase. The potential for cures of chronic diseases from stem cell research can save millions. But why support stem cell research after stating the objection of individual rights? There has not been any research scientifically verifying human life beginning at the embryonic stage. So this research cannot be harming human life. Some individuals believe that morally stem cell research reflects the act of â€Å"playing God† and it is an act that destroys human life. To answer that statement, who is to judge that manipulation of cells is morally wrong? There is no evidence that human life is being harmed and individual rights are not being subjected to foul play. With this not only will happiness occur but the overall consequence reflects the stages it took to achieve an end. Basically, the ending is virtue. Supporters of stem cell research can see no wrongdoing in the act itself. The objection cannot really apply if human life has not been determined. Let’s look at rule-utilitarianism and apply it to stem cell research. Can we maximize utility over a longer period of time in stem cell research to make the topic acceptable? This means, is it possible to do research on limited number of cells over a period of time rather than all at once for the same ending result? Does this make the issue better and can maximum utility be achieved? Conclusion Stem cell research has been a topic of controversy for quite some time. Those who object the idea believe that there is manipulation and destruction of human life and murder is being committed. They believe that human life begins at the embryonic stage. In support of stem cell research, utilitarianism can be applied. Stem cell research seeks to achieve the greatest happiness and maximize utility by saving lives. The primary objection to this issue was the neglect of individual rights. However, if human life has not been determined, individual rights have not been compromised. In support of the greater good, stem cell research is needed in healthcare for medical advancement. References Robertson, J. (2010). Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 191-203. Sandel, M. (2009). Justice: Whats the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Seehy, P. (2002). Doing the Right Thing (Part II): Challenges to Utilitarianism. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from The Richmond Journal of Philosophy: http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/rjp20_sheehy.php US Department of Health and Human Services. (2009, April 28). What are the unique properties of stem cells? Retrieved July 08, 2014, from Stem Cell Information: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/pages/basics2.aspx West, H. (2012). Utilitarianism. Retrieved July 4, 2014, from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html