Genetic Engineering: Perfect Body or Perfect Sin? :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

Genetic Engineering: Perfect Body or Perfect Sin? New advancements in science happen everyday. Products may include medicines, fertilizers, household cleaners, durable materials, and more. One of the most controversial issues in the world of science is genetic engineering. Scientists say genetic engineering may bring large advantages to humans and the way they live. Critics argue that genetic engineering can mean the destruction of the pure human being. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages in genetic engineering but disaster can be avoided if extreme caution is practiced. When people used to think of genetic engineering, they thought of genetically enhanced superior food products. That all changed after Dolly, the cloned sheep, was introduced to the world. The recent advances in genetics sparked conversation about cloning human beings. Scientists believe that genetic engineering in humans is the answer to the multitude of problems that millions face everyday. Hereditary baldness, heart problems, mental disorders, and a lot more genetic diseases would cease to exist. The perfect world isn't that far away. So what could possibly go wrong in a perfect world made up of genetically enhanced organisms? Critics fear that disease-producing organisms used in food products might develop worldwide epidemics. The catholic church says that human cloning is morally wrong. Others don't want a perfect world. They argue that the ill-bred humans will take away our right to suffer. According to critics, genetically changing the structure of a living thing isn't worth the risk or sin. The perfect physical world is nearer than anyone can imagine. The anticipated problems can be resolved before they even happen. Epidemics can be avoided by careful procedure, supervision, and inspection. The National Institute of Health already has established regulations restricting the types of DNA that can be used for these types of experiments. The only barrier left is sin. There is nothing man can do to change the word of God. Man's is willingness to sin for happiness does not differ from stealing or killing for money. Heaven is the sacrifice they have to make to enjoy happiness. Science is an amazing and dangerous world that man seeks to control. Genetic engineering was never intended for man to discover. Now that he has, should he use it for his benefit?

‘Disraeli did infinitely more for the working classes than Gladstone.’ Do you agree?

Both men, who served as Prime Ministers, reformed many institutions with many of them effecting the working class like education (bringing up the working class), trade union (helping the working class fight for work wrights), public health (living conditions affecting the working class) and licensing (the way many working class people passed the time), along with the electoral institution (workers being able to vote on the matters which the work upon, such as factory conditions and education).Many historians, such as William Kuhn, argue that William Gladstone, the Liberal Prime Minister, passed many other reforms as well to help the working class, including the Ballot Act of 1872. However, some historians, such as Monypenny and Buckle, say that Benjamin Disraeli, the Conservative Prime Minister, did more to help the working class, including passing the Second Great Reform Act of 1867. The issue of trade union reforms was heavily involved in both Prime Minister's term of offices, to w hich Disraeli seemed to do more for, even though Gladstone provided the building blocks for the reforms.Gladstone was the first PM to recognise the rights of trade unions to exist. His legislation of 1871, the Trade Union Act, gave the unions legal protection and the freedom to exist and collect subs. On first reading, then, it would seem that Gladstone truly understood the concerns of working men and collective security against unscrupulous employers. However, the Act did not allow Unions to go on strike, due to a clause which ‘failed to define intimidation clearly', which even a bad look could send someone to jail, which irritated the Radicals.It was a half-hearted measure that alarmed the Whig-conservative elements and frustrated the hopes of working men, as the interpretation was lost in courts. Many saw it as a pointless decision, and it took Disraeli in 1875 to allow unions the right to strike. Disraeli’s legislation differed from Gladstone’s in that he was much more practical in his social reforms. Gladstone’s reforms required cooperation from the working classes; it places demands on them to respond.Disraeli’s approach was to provide non-controversial legislation that was beneficial to all in society, including letting the Employers and Workmen Act have a clause that accepted that breaches of conduct such as pay and working hours by employers and workmen to be treated as offences under civil law, with even Alexander MacDonald, a trade unionist and a Liberal MP, saying that â€Å"the Conservatives have done more for the working classes in six years than the Liberals had in sixty.†This shows that in trade union reform, Disraeli did more for the working class due to effectively allowing peaceful picketing. Another issue that Disraeli and Gladstone both put reforms into was public health to which it seemed Gladstone did more to help the working class. Gladstone, in 1872, passed the Public Health Act, which establish ed the Urban & Rural Sanitary Authorities for public health in the local areas. This all came from a Commission in 1871 saying that the sanitary laws should be made uniform.Even though these were abolished in a Local Government Act in 1894, the 1872 Act led the way for Urban and Rural District Councils that still run to do run to this day. On Disraeli's attempt, he passed the Public Health Act of 1875, due to the actions of George Sclater-Booth, a Conservative MP for Health. The Act brought together all the previous legislation under a newly established system of power and checks for issues such as sewage/draining and public toilets.This was seen as a massive success due to the fact that there was no public health measures for the next 60 years after the passage of the act. However, with the fact that it he paved the way for local government control that still exists today to help the working class, Gladstone did more to help the working class than Disraeli did in the public health reform. The issue of licensing snuck into both Prime Ministers' time. In both cases, it didn't do any good for the ruling party.For Gladstone's, the 1872 Licensing Act gave JPs the right to grant licenses to publicans, to fix operating hours and check for the adulteration of the alcohol. Gladstone introduced the act due to the commonness of widespread drunkenness in 19th Century Britain. However, it didn't do any good for the Liberals, due to that moderateness of the act which disappointed two Liberal pressure groups of the party (mostly single issue MPs), who thought the act was ‘too lenient'. There is also historical view from Lowe that the Act affected â€Å"a positive permanent shift of the publicans and brewers of the Tory Party.†Lowe then observes that the Licensing Act was major cause of the Liberal defeat in 1874. The same reform ideas went into Disraeli's second term with the Intoxicating Liquoring Act, which again, curtailed opening hours and in the end, pleas ed nobody. Even though both attempts failed to sort out the problem of licensing, Gladstone lost a lot of working class support due to the licensing Act, as there were a number of near riots to enforce closing hours, and as Lowe writes, many brewers went to theTories after the 1872 Act, so Disraeli seemed not to harm the working class as much as Gladstone did to his own party and the working class. An issue the two honourable Prime Ministers shared in working on education, to which Disraeli seemed to do more for the working class. Gladstone's work on the Forster’s Education Act established the principle of universal elementary education. The state was taking on board the responsibility and the costs of educating all children up to a certain age.This had a link with meritocracy because Gladstone wanted the working classes to be aspiring: education would encourage workers to be more reflective and focus on moral and ethical progress, furthering one of Gladstone's aims. This was not necessarily appreciated by the working man and woman. Gladstone’s high-minded ideals were very far removed from the daily experiences of the ordinary family who were trying to scrape together a living. Ensuring that children had to receive schooling meant that there was less money coming into the family household.Disraeli’s Education Act 1876, clarified Forster’s Act, by placing a duty on parents to ensure that their children received elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic; created school attendance committees, which could compel attendance, for districts where there were no school boards; and the poor law guardians were given permission to help with the payment of school fees, giving a way of working class families a chance to get a child in education and made employment of children under 10 illegal, incentivising parents to send their kids off to school.This shows that in education neither Gladstone or Disraeli had any significant under standing of the plight of working class lives especially in a pre-welfare age. However, since Disraeli was able to further the work done by Gladstone, I believe that Disraeli managed to help the working class more, due to that managed to help the working class children get into school. One final comparison between the two figureheads of Gladstone and Disraeli that we can make is the reforms electorally.Gladstone passed the Ballot Act of 1872, which made voting in elections happen by secret ballot and that candidates shouldn't be nominated at the hustings. The Act enhanced the right of the voters to cast their votes without intimidation, which pleased many working class people, as they didn't have to vote to their landlord's wishes. Disraeli however, did pass the Second Great Reform Act, which extended the right to vote still further down the class ladder, adding  just short of a million voters, including many working men, and doubling the electorate to almost two million voters in England and Wales alone.Even though both prime ministers were successful in helping the working class secure their say in government, I believe that Gladstone did more to help the working class, with the upper class getting less voting power with their single ballot and that landlords couldn't compel their tenants to vote the way that they wanted to. There was a reason for the differences in why Gladstone and Disraeli did different things.Gladstone, from his strict religious beliefs, thought that by helping the working class, they would become more moral. In this case, Gladstone's reforms in Licensing were due to the immorality of the large problematic situation he found in drinking houses. As a committed Anglican Christian, he believed that the church, which was the official state religion of the UK at the time, had a important role of defending ‘God's' plan to help people and deter them from sin, and by helping the people, he would be seen as helping ‘God's' creation. Disraeli, on the other hand, perused reforms, which many were compromises on behalf of the elite. One of the main aims of Disraeli was to maintain the traditional aristocratic constitution of the country, and this was seen in many of his reforms, such as the education reforms, which was designed to uphold the ascendancy of squire and parson in rural England. The reforms weren't really meant to help the poor, they were there to help settle a possible class conflict of ideas and interests. There are many historical opinions about who did more to help the working class.There are some, such as Lee, who claim that there was no real worked out legislation programme, more of a typical 19th Century politician â€Å"paying off electoral debt†. For Gladstone, Matthew describes his pattern of reforming as the ‘reforms on the inefficient administrations of the UK,' showing that he reformed to keep government expenditure low and wanted to liberate people from outdated restrictions, like he did with trade union reforms, which were giving trade unions legal protection.In conclusion, I believe that with these categories, I agree that Disraeli did do more, but the word â€Å"infinitely† is too far for my understanding. Even though the reforms were to protect the interest of the aristocrats and gave more the working class, Gladstone gave the building blocks for many of the reforms, such as giving trade unions the legal protection that they wanted and setting the way for local councils with the public health reforms.

Essay on Confucianism - 1052 Words

Confucianism What is Confucianism? Confucianism was the single most important thing in Chinese life. It affected everything in China; education, government, and attitudes toward behavior in public and private life. Confucianism is not a religion, but it is more a philosophy and a guide to morality and good government. The Laozian and Mohist critiques of the Confucianism are both in an accurate fashion. Most significant value from Lazi is The Tao Te Jing. It is true that, while Confucianism emphasizes social order and an active life, Taoism concentrates on individual life and tranquility, thus suggesting that Taoism plays a secondary role (pp. 136 SB) In the writings of The Tao Te Jing, Lazi answers how is Confucianism should be,†¦show more content†¦169 SB) Tao is the essence of everything that is right, and complications exist only because people choose to complicate their own lives. Desire, ambition, fame, and selfishness are seen as hindrances to a harmonious life. It is only when a person rids himself of all desires can tao being achieved. By shunning every earthly distraction, the Taoist is able to concentrate on life itself. The longer the persons life, the more saintly the person is presumed to have become. Eventually the hope is to become immortal, to achieve tao, to have reached the deeper life. This is the after life for a Taoist, to be in harmony with the un iverse, to have achieved tao (pp. 173 SB). In ancient China, up to the beginning of the Han dynasty, the greatest schools were not only Confucianism, but also Mohism. The whole Confucian ethical system is based on the concept of humanity, whereas Mozi based his on the concept of righteousness. To the Confucianist, heaven does not directly exert its will but leaves the moral law to operate by itself. To Mo Tzu, however, the will of heaven determines all. Mo Tzu strongly condemns ceremonies, music, elaborate funerals, and the belief in fate (Ming, destiny), all of which were promoted by Confucius and his followers. For Confucius, moral life is desirable for its own sake, whereas for Mo Tzu it desirables because of the Benefits it brings. (PP. 221 SB) Mozi does emphasizeShow MoreRelatedConfucianism : Taoism, Confucianism, And Confucianism1156 Words   |  5 PagesRaymond Cho EALC 350 October 29, 2014 Professor Birge Which philosophy: Taoism, Confucianism, or Legalism would be best in your opinion for maintaining a peaceful society? Why? Perhaps there is no single philosophy that can create a truly peaceful society. The conundrum of choosing a philosophy to embody a peaceful society is rather complicated, as the ideologies of the philosophies often differ greatly from their real world application. Debates over ideologies can create global scale problemsRead MoreChristianity And Confucianism : Confucianism2203 Words   |  9 PagesChristianity and Confucianism Christianity and Confucianism are important religions today at least according to the Chinese. As a result, the rising influence brought about by Confucianism in China tends to trigger conflicts between the two religions. The Chinese society is greatly influenced by Confucianism, which has a considerable impact on Christianity as a religion in China. The modes of thinking associated with Confucianism are evident in the Chinese Christianity, but Confucianism ideas are deeplyRead MoreConfucianism, Taoism, And Confucianism1277 Words   |  6 Pagesmain philosophies: Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism. These beliefs helped shape Chinese culture as well as Chinese history. Not only did people believe in these ideas, but the three helped to govern the mighty Chinese dynasties. These dynasties all provided an impact to each doctrine; the philosophy that had the greatest impact was legalism because it ended the Warring States Period, provided structure, and strengthened agriculture, and the military of China. Although Confucianism, Taoism and LegalismRead MoreA Short History Of Confucianism And Confucianism1196 Words   |  5 PagesProfessor Dimick 23 November 2014 A Short History of Confucianism Confucianism is a way of life propagated by the Chinese philosopher Confucius in the 6th–5th century BCE, and it has been followed by the Chinese for more than 2000 years. Although Confucianism as changed over time, at its core, it is still places the same emphasis on the substance of learning, the source of values, and the social code of the Chinese. Additionally, the influence of Confucianism has extended to other countries such as KoreaRead MoreDifferences Between Confucianism And Confucianism1084 Words   |  5 Pagesphilosophies were similar, like their beliefs about man and society; their ideas were a little bit different and each had their own focus. The difference in focus between Confucianism and Taoism is that Confucianism was focused on having a structured society. It held as a principle the brotherhood of humanity. The opinion of Confucianism in humans was that for humans to live in harmony with each other there needed to be a type of hierarchy in place. That†™s why he had the five Confucian relationships inRead MoreEssay on Confucianism2000 Words   |  8 PagesConfucianism A philosopher named Confucius founded Confucianism in China 2,500 years ago. Confucianism is a system of ethical behavior and social responsibility that became the great traditions of the East.1 It played an important role in the evolution in Chinese culture over the centuries. It has influenced near-by countries and had made a mark in the history of religion. There are today over six million people who call themselves Confucianists. Most Confucianists live in East Asia whereRead More Confucianism Essay2049 Words   |  9 Pages Confucianism Mencius vs Hsun Tzu nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Is man naturally good or is he evil? This question has not only been pondered by countless philosophers, but also by religious leaders around the world. Most often a single religious faith believes in either one or the other, and often these beliefs tend to create a certain world-view which dictates much of the faith. However, in some cases such as the one I will be discussing, two religious dignitaries do not agree and the repercussionsRead MoreContributions Of Confucianism1034 Words   |  5 PagesConfucius was a great Chinese philosopher, but he was also a teacher, editor, and politician. He was born on September 28, 551 BC, and died in 479 BC. He was most well known as Confucius, but his real name is Kong Qiu. After his death, Confucianism became the official imperial philosophy of China. Later after his death, he was regarded as a sage who deserved greater recognition, and his teachings became more popular. He accomplished many great things in his life, and died a successful man. Read MoreIs Confucianism A Religion?1595 Words   |  7 PagesIs Confucianism A Religion? Without a doubt, Confucius is regarded as one of the greatest sages of China history. Some people even refer to him as a deity. There have even been attempts to make Confucianism into a religion. However, present day people regard Confucius as an ethical teacher rather than a man of religious faith, and they refuse to believe that Confucianism is a religion. However, in order to determine whether Confucianism is a religion, the most important Confucian text, The AnalectsRead MoreMengzi And Confucianism817 Words   |  4 PagesOne of the oldest philosophies in Chinese history is Confucianism. At the time of the warring states, Confucius wandered throughout China seeking a ruler who accepted the Confucian way. Since then, his ideas grew and are still relevant today. Throughout time other philosophers, Mengzi and Xunzi, have interpreted Confucius’ teachings and have long debated whether human nature is good or bad. I argue that human nature is not, as Mengzi believes, inhere ntly good, instead, completely self-interested