Science Fiction Book Report Essays - Frankenstein, Free Essays

Science Fiction Book Report Essays - Frankenstein, Free Essays Science Fiction Book Report In the story Frankenstein, written by the author Mary Shelley, Victor Frankenstein decided that wanted to create a being out of people that were already dead. He believed that he could bring people back from the grave. Playing with nature in such a way would make him play the role of God. With Victor Frankenstein feeling that he had no true friends, the only relief he had of expressing his feeling was through letters to Elizabeth. Elizabeth was not Victors true sister but he loved her very dearly, making sure to always write her when ever he had the chance. Yet, when Victor left something strange came over him. Already being interested in subjects such as natural philosophy and chemistry, he fall upon the question of how to bring someone back to life. He became very involved in this project and worked on it for days on end. The project had to do with defying the laws of nature. Victor believe wholeheartedly that he could bring the dead back to life. He felt that the dead were not ready to die and they were just resting. Victor became so self absorbed into his project that he seem to forget all that was important to him. He even disengaged himself from all the people he loved in his life. People like his father, Elizabeth, and other loved ones. Victor began to write less and less. Yet, it was not until Elizabeth got a discouraged letter from Victor, did his love ones start to wary about him. Though, the letter was full of words, it gave no relief to Elizabeth, because the words meant nothing to her. However, they meant a lot to Victor, because he felt the project in which he was working on was so important to him, in his own delirious world. He felt that with bring people back to life he would not only better man kind, but also establish a name for himself. With this type of attitude, he did not even take into consideration that he might make the world a worse place. This part in the story shows the irony. The irony being that Victor Frankenstein feels he is doing something good for the world, but we later find out just how bad this creation could be. Though Elizabeth wanted to pull Victor away from his project, he was unwilling to leave until it is complete. After Victor found how to bring his creation to life, he also found out just how evil his invention could be. His creation was strong and evil. With the escape of the monster, Victor Frankenstein had to come to realization of what his creation might do and the consequences that Frankenstein, himself would have to deal with. With the murder of his brother weighing the guilt on his shoulders, Frankenstein know he had to do something. So he went looking for the monster. Upon their meeting each other, the monster confessed that when he found out that William as Victors brother he killed him. He then proceeded to tell him that he killed his brother due to the fact that he was trying to get back at his creator for bringing him to life and allowing him to be an out cast in society. This killing prove to Victor that the monster did not know right from wrong or how to cope with his anger. This aggression made Frankenstein's creation violent. While talking with the monster, the monster demanded from Frankenstein to create a partner that he could be able to live with away for society. At first, agreeing to the demand, but later realized that if his first creation came out to be a killer so could the second one. With this in mind Frankenstein revoked his agreement and decided against creating another monster. Though, knowing that this decision could be dangerous to him and his loved ones. Yet, he had to think of what was truly best for man kind. Bringing the dead to life or saving the lives of the living. Another peace of irony in this story is, just like Victor Frankenstein who had no friends and was different from the rest of society so was the monster. Also, when Frankenstein decided to play God and bring the dead to life, his creation took on the same role when he decided to take away some ones life. All

Homeless people essays

Homeless people essays When was the last time you saw a homeless man or woman in the street? Did you ever wonder what events had to have happened to make that person want to or have to live in the streets with no place to go to? There are many things that could have happened to them which might have contributed to their problem. The reasons are different for each and every person. Some of the more major issues that contribute to this are lack of affordable housing, declining welfare assistance, and mental illness. Homeless and the working poor are not able to get enough money to afford a house. The National Coalition for the Homeless clearly states, A lack of affordable housing and the limited scale of housing assistance programs have contributed to the current housing crisis and to homelessness (Why Are People Homeless). There is not much done these days to help with affordable housing for everyone. The homeless problem will continue to increase if nothing is done. Supply of low-income housing has declined precipitously making it harder for those with low wages to acquire a house (Wright). The high expense of an average house is more than someone working on minimum can afford and still have enough for other needs. Any accident or emergency could prevent them from making a payment or getting what they need. James Wright reports, in his article homelessness, [Adult education programs, emergency fund and transitional housing programs] have made the lives of many homeless people more tolerable, but they do not address low-income housing crisis. Welfare and soup kitchens cannot help the nations homeless population in the long run. We need a good solution that will help prevent and give a long-term solution for homelessness. Affordable homes would make a large difference in the current status of homelessness in this country. Affordable housing is a major problem that affects numero ...

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY SUMMARY Assignment

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY SUMMARY - Assignment Example The corporation’s vision is to be the customer’s favorite place, hence the best fast food corporation globally. However, this vision is achievable if the firm fully embraces Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) whereby currently it has instituted programs towards in each state. This study will discuss in detail about McDonald’s corporation how it exercises its CSR and some of the areas that need improvement for it to realize its vision. When it comes to CSR, this firm ensures that it does the best as cited by Kathleen Bannan, who is the CSR senior manager. She contended McDonald’s has evolved in how it handles its CSR with the intention of being unique in the market (Singh, 2010). Hence, achieving its goals seen in its establishment of branches in other states that serve quality products. The firm is always making efforts to safeguard environment by using less energy, hence fewer emissions compared to others that have proved to be great emitters in their locations. For instance, all their trucks run on biodiesel, which is normally reused from spent cooking oil (McDonald’s UK 2011). To safeguard environment, the firm also utilizes LED bulbs and waterless urinals to reduce the amount energy used. Apart from using recycled cardboard boxes, it also recycles its packaging materials, hence saving on packaging costs (Lee & Kotler, 2013). Due to its involvement in charitable activities, the company has build it reputation besides fame especially among the youths who love snacks. One program under its organizations is the HACER launched in attempt to minimize schools’ dropout which was on the rise especially among Hispanic students (RMHC, n.d). McDonald’s also gives accommodation to families who have children in hospital through the â€Å"home away from home† program (RMHC, n.d). Despite achievements that the

Rights of the Unborn in the UK and EU Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words - 1

Rights of the Unborn in the UK and EU - Essay Example is that continuing with the pregnancy involves a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman, or her existing children, than having a termination. Abortion of up to 24 weeks is allowed if there is a substantial risk that the child when born would suffer "such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. The second condition is that an abortion must be agreed by two doctors and carried out by a doctor in a government-approved hospital or clinic. The right to life of the unborn was historically protected by British laws on abortion. The English common law did not prosecute for abortions performed before quickening. In 1803, with Lord Ellenboroughs Act, Parliament enacted statutes overriding this relatively lenient stance (Potts Diggory, and Peel 1977). In 1861 Parliament passed the Offences against the Person Act. Section 58 of the Act made abortion a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment from three years to life even when performed for medical reasons. Two laws, the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 and Abortion Act of 1967 provided the exceptions to this 1861 Act. In 1929, the Infant Life Preservation Act amended the law stating it would no longer be regarded as a felony if abortion was carried out in good faith for the sole purpose of preserving the life of the mother. The Act made it illegal to kill a child capable of being born alive, and enshrined 28 weeks as the age at which a fetus is presumed to be viable. Th e Act allowed a doctor to perform an abortion legally if he/she was satisfied that the continuance of the pregnancy was liable to endanger the health of the expectant mother. In 1938, the Bourne case unfolded. The Bourne case concerned a young woman was gang raped by a group of soldiers and became pregnant. Dr Alec Bourne agreed to perform an abortion for her and was subsequently prosecuted. The judge agreed that forcing her to continue with the pregnancy would have been tantamount to wrecking her life. This

I Am the Way and the Truth and the Life Theological Study Essay Example for Free

I Am the Way and the Truth and the Life Theological Study Essay Jesus answered, â€Å"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. â€Å" When examining a Biblical verse, it is important to understand the historical context in which it’s written. Originally recorded by John, Son of Zebedee, whose main purpose in writing his Gospel can be found in John 20:31, â€Å"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. , is Jesus’ declaration â€Å"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me†. The passage of John 14:6 is part of an extensive conversation that Jesus had with his disciples during the â€Å"Last Supper† on the eve of the Passover Feast. Immediately preceding the statement, we read that Judas has been identified as the betrayer of Jesus and that Peter will deny Jesus three times before sunrise. Jesus has just advised his followers that he will be leaving them soon and He is attempting to comfort them. This one statement which focuses on the four thoughts, â€Å"way, truth, life, and coming to the Father†, is in essence a â€Å"recipe† for Christianity and completely fulfills the prophesy of the coming Messiah in the Old Testament. In examining the first word â€Å"way†, we find numerous accounts of The Way in the New Testament. The Way was a term used within the Jewish community to identify the â€Å"sect† of Jesus- the true Israel- as opposed to the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Zealots. We can see an example of this usage by Paul in the text of Acts 24:14, â€Å"However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect†¦Ã¢â‚¬  There are also Old Testament accounts such as in Isaiah 35:8 which speaks of the joy of the Redeemed, â€Å"And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way; wicked fools will not go about on it. † Jesus is the Way. He is the only way to Salvation; He is the only way the Father. Looking at the second word, â€Å"truth†, we can obtain a direct definition from the Expository Dictionary, in which the Greek translation means the â€Å"truth of God†. We can find many references to the word truth in the Bible. John 14:16-17, 1 John 4:6, and 2 John 2 contain multiple references to the Spirit of Truth and John 15:26 declares â€Å"When the Counselor comes whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who goes out from the Father, He will testify about me†. In John 14: 9, Jesus says â€Å"†¦ Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. And in verse 11, He says â€Å"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me†¦Ã¢â‚¬ . The Truth is Jesus is the Christ- the Son of God, the personification of God, and part of the Trinity. Life, the third main word in the verse refers to Eternal Life. This is affirmed in various biblical verses such as John 3:16 â€Å"For God so loved the world that he gave his o ne and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life†. There are also several verses such as in John 5:40 and Acts 3:15 where Jesus is referred to as the Author of Life. In John 1:1-5 we can find the Prime Author idea expanded upon with â€Å"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it†. I do not believe it was an accident that Jesus was crucified in conjunction with the Passover Festival. Jesus became our sacrificial lamb and shed his blood so that the judgement of death would â€Å"pass over† us and allow us to obtain salvation.

Three Strikes Law Essay -- essays research papers

Today there is a growing awareness of repeat offenders among society in reference to crime. Starting around 1980 there was noticeable increase in crime rates in the U.S.. In many of these cases it was noted that these individuals were in fact repeat offenders. So, on March 7, 1994 California enacted the Three-Strikes and You’re Out Law. This laws and other laws like it are currently being utilized today all around the Untied States. This law was first backed by victim’s rights advocates in the state to target habitual offenders. The reason California holds the most importance on this law is due to the fact that it has the largest criminal justice system in America, and it has the most controversy surrounding this law in particular.(Auerhahn, p.55) The roots of this law actually come from Washington State. This state was the first state to actually pass a no-nonsense three strikes policy. The first movement toward this began in the summer of 1991 as research project for the Washington Institute for Policy Studies. The main goals for the project were to examine and review the current practices of sentencing career criminals, and to make recommendations as needed. The researchers wanted anyone who as convicted of a third serious felony to be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. They wanted there to be no sympathy whatsoever for the criminals. This law was not enforced there until December 1993. (Lacourse, p.1) In California, the most notable reasons for this law were promoted by Fresno resident, Mike Reynolds. In 1992, his daughter was attacked and murdered by two men whom were parolees. The gunman was killed in a shoot-out with police, while the other offender only received a nine year prison sentence. This outraged many, including Mr. Reynolds. He then approached two democratic assemblymen, then they drafted the first three strikes bill, which was defeated. Mr. Reynolds kept campaigning to help pass this bill. He soon got most of his backing from another case, the Polly Klaas case. In this incident a twelve-year old girl was abducted from her bedroom in San Francisco and murdered by Richard Allen Davis. Davis had a lengthy criminal history, and had been released from prison bore he committed this heinous crime. This very case became the public’s main tool in wanting to put an end to â€Å"career criminals.† So, in 1994 the bill was finally pas... ...e data I gathered from both sides of the argument, I have come to a conclusion on whether the law is just. Personally, I feel these laws are not as harsh as some people have made them out to be. We must tackle criminals of any kind to maintain a good society. How can we have this good society if habitual offenders keep polluting it? Deterrence seems positively correlated with the facts I presented in the argument that supported the Three Strikes law. Crime went down with the implementation of these laws. My overall thoughts are that if a person cannot grow and learn from their mistakes to become better individuals, then they must be taken off our streets. Criminals are just that C R I M I N A L S. Certain crimes serve as stepping stones to more violent crimes. The threat of these long sentences may stop a second time offender from committing their third offense. This law can help reduce the prison population by serving as a deterrent to these potential repeat offenders. I agree with this utilitarian method of law. The greater good is served by getting them of the streets. The punishment of the criminals definitely benefits society, and finally there is a means to reach an end.

Our Moral Responsibility to Provide Monetary Aid to Pakistani Villagers Essay

In this essay, I will argue that the theory of Utilitarianism presents resilient, compelling arguments that exemplifies why we have a moral obligation to donate money to help the Pakistani villagers affected by recent floods. Though the argument put forth by Ethical Egoists in favor of donating money to the Pakistanis is convincing, it lacks the quantitative validation that Utilitarianism provides. The Perspective of an Ethical Egoist Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist moral theory that says each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively (EMP 69). A person’s only moral duty is to do what is best for him or herself, and he or she helps others only if the act [of helping] benefits the individual in some way (EMP 63). On the surface, it appears that it is not in a person’s best self-interests to donate money to help villagers in Pakistan. The giver experiences monetary loss and the diminution of personal financial wealth, and expends time, energy, and effort in the donation-transaction process. He or she receives neither public acknowledgement nor donor recognition. There are, however, intangible benefits that the giver may reap as a result of his or her deed, such as the satisfaction that he or she receives from giving monetary aid to the Pakistanis or the happiness that he or she experiences for acting in accordance with his or her values. It is in the giver’s self-interest and, therefore, his or her moral duty to give monetary aid to those plagued by the Pakistan floods. The facts that an Ethical Egoist would consider to be important are the consequences to him or herself because Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist moral theory that revolves around the self. Consequentialism contends that the right thing to do is determined by the consequences brought about from it (Class Notes, 10/05/2010). In this case, the morally relevant facts that the Ethical Egoist is primarily concerned with are the intangible benefits and advantages that he or she would receive from giving. The Ethical Egoist would also consider the actual and implicit costs of giving aid, as they are consequences brought about from helping the Pakistani villagers. The argument put forth by Ethical Egoism is good because it is compatible with commonsense morality. To reiterate, Ethical Egoism says that â€Å"all duties are ultimately derived from the one fundamental principle of self-interest† (EMP 73). According to Hobbes, this theory leads to the Golden Rule, which states that â€Å"we should ‘do unto others’ because if we do, others will be more likely to ‘do unto us’† (EMP 74). In this case, if we do not give to others, other people will not give to us. Thus, it is to our advantage to give to others. The Utilitarian Argument Classical, or Act, Utilitarianism maintains that the morally right act is the one that yields maximum happiness for all sentient beings impartially. Utilitarianism requires us to consider the general welfare of society and the interests of other people. Giving money to help the villagers in Pakistan generates positive consequences and diminishes the negative effects of the floods. Specifically, donations for disaster relief results in the availability of medicines to treat sicknesses, the provision and distribution of cooked meals, hygiene kits, and clothing, and the reconstruction and restoration of homes and schools. In short, giving money relieves great suffering of the flood-affected Pakistanis, enhances the balance of happiness over misery, and endorses the maximum and greater good of society. Therefore, the morally right thing to do is to donate money to help the Pakistani villagers. Similar to Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, though this theory is concerned with the greater good of society. Therefore, the morally relevant facts for a Utilitarian are the consequences to all people impartially. In this case, they include the circulation of food, clothing, medicines, and the restoration of villages. Providing monetary aid ultimately produces the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness for society. The Utilitarian argument for donating money is good because it provides calculable validation. In other words, the utility of the receivers is quantifiable and tangible (number of meals, hygiene kits, water tanks provided, number of homes rebuilt, etc. ). This tangibility clearly illustrates that the utility of the receiver exceeds the marginal cost to the giver and produces the greatest amount of happiness over unhappiness. Why the Utilitarian Argument is Stronger There is an epistemic problem that weakens the argument given by the Ethical Egoist. We do not know precisely what the consequences will be. We expect that the intangible benefits include self-satisfaction, enjoyment of giving, and happiness from providing financial aid, and we estimate that the costs consist of the actual donation payment and all related opportunity costs; however, we do not know exactly what the consequences will be and the extent of the results. It is, thus, difficult to gauge whether donating to charity is actually in the giver’s best self-interest exclusively because the associated costs may be very great (the giver may end up poorer or the donation-transaction process may be stressful; both situations would not be to his or her advantage). The immeasurability and intangibility of the benefits also weakens the argument. Ayn Rand, an Ethical Egoist, responds to this objection and asserts that it is completely moral and permissible to offer aid to others even when one does not anticipate any tangible return; â€Å"personal reasons for offering aid—reasons consistent with one’s values and one’s pursuit of one’s own life—are sufficient to justify the act† (Gordon Shannon, 10/16/2010). Rand says that personal reasons, such as values and pursuit of a flourishing life, are adequate to justify the act. We run, however, into a problem: just because we have a moral justification to give aid, does it mean we are morally required to give aid? Rand provides a moral justification, but not a moral mandate; this makes the argument put forth by Ethical Egoism weak. While Ethical Egoism provides a convincing argument and response to the objection, the Utilitarian argument is stronger because it buffers against the epistemic problem and provides quantitative, calculable validation. The problem of epistemology does not apply to or weaken the Utilitarian argument because we know what the consequences will be, based on present initiatives. Plan UK has provided cooked meals to over 250,000 people, shelter for 230,000, water tanks, hygiene kits, and medicines for thousands of families (Plan UK). We know how the money will benefit the Pakistani villagers and we can quantify the amount of happiness and good that entails the act of giving aid to others. To summarize: Ethical Egoism says that we ought to pursue our own self-interests exclusively. The morally right act is the one that benefits the self. There is, however, an epistemic problem. We do not know what the consequences will be or the extent of these outcomes. Donating to charity may not benefit the self. Utilitarianism, however, avoids the problem of epistemology and immeasurability. Therefore, Utilitarianism is the stronger argument. Conclusion In this paper, I have presented the theories of Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism, delved into the morally relevant facts, and reflected on why each argument is good. I illustrated why Utilitarianism is stronger by appealing to a weakness of Ethical Egoism. Thus, the Utilitarian perspective that we have a moral duty to donate money to help Pakistani villagers is a better argument.