Article Review Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 5

Article Review - Research Paper Example The article highlights that the millennial group has been slowly surpassing the baby boomers and it currently defines the largest age group. Prior to the emergence of the millennial, many businesses focused on understanding the behaviors of baby boomers in an effort to launch products that suited their needs. The Millennials’ group seems to have entirely different spending patterns and consumer behaviors. This compels businesses to develop new strategies that match the new consumer model. Notably, the millennial have grown up to face challenging economic times that have contributed to their consumer behaviors. They are not focused on making big purchases such as houses and cars. Most of them still live with their parents, and they have not adopted a life of independence. Businesses are struggling to understand the unpredictability of this group who have a high level of education, but with new consumer behavioral patterns. Although the group is currently facing financial challe nges resulting from the economic recession, future projections indicate that they are likely to control the economy in the future (Searcey). This is one reason why marketers are interested in understanding their consumer behavior. The article is relevant to modern marketers who seek to understand the consumer behavior in an effort to determine the type of products launched into the market. There has been an evident confusion experienced by many companies who wish to target the Millennials, but do not have a clear understanding of their consumer behavior. This article presents critical information to marketers in the modern day and in the future. The article succeeds in highlighting the salient need for further research in understanding the consumer behavior of the Millennials group. It serves to place emphasis on the need for companies to understand how the Millennials group

Socio economic class Essay Example for Free

Socio economic class Essay There is a challenging and closely related link between religion and public schools. Diversity in class rooms also includes the diversity of religions and some of the teachers think that religion has become the most controversial subject. There are students from different religions studying in USA schools including Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs; the school curriculum also includes material on religion (Kunzman, 2006). Schools are the breeding ground for the future actions of children and they should focus, among other things, making students understand the diversity of the fellow students specially when conflicts may erupt as a result of the differences and religion is one such sensitive aspect that can result in disagreements about our way of living in the society and our behaviors. USA is still dominated by Christianity but religious pluralism is increasing in the country and it has been found that â€Å"The United States has become the most religiously diverse nation on earth† (cited in Kunzman, 2006). The importance of religious diversity is evident from the fact that a religious diversity must be carefully analyzed and made a part of school curriculum if we want to live without conflicting religions together. (Kilman, 2007). Following are some guidelines that should be kept in mind while educating religiously diverse classes: Students should not only be equipped with the basic knowledge of different religions but they should also be made to understand and appreciate the other religions and respect the differences, this is done to value diversity and not to change the individual believes (Kunzman, 2006). Students should be clearly taught that religion is a private affair and has nothing to do with how we socially interact with each or make friends. There is absolutely no reason to have disagreements with fellow students over religious practices or values. Learning about other religions and cultures in a respectful environment doesn’t imply the loss of the child’s unique cultural or religious identity (Kirmani Laster, 1999). There is a lack of commitment in public schools towards developing students’ cognitive understanding of religion. Some studies point out the inattention towards religion in textbooks while others give evidence of a lack of confidence on behalf of the teachers’ lack of confidence in addressing current religious standards (Kunzman, 2006). As long as the schools are not serious about imparting religious education or understand how important they are to managing diversity, no step can be taken at the level of individual teachers or students. Without the necessary steps, appreciating other religions’ diversity is not possible. Another one of the many several ways to mark diversity is socio economic class. Some of the school that have been limited by a recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling from using race as a criteria for diversifying schools can use socio economic diversification as an alternative mean; as a result of such adoption, school populations are expected to go through certain changes (editorial, 2007). Social status has a link with gender. It has been explained through a study that often the result of differences in achievements are linked to these factors. In disadvantaged societies where there are low resources, inequality in education takes place and girls are the one who are at a disadvantage, thus unfair and unequal distribution of social and economic resources takes place and the gender to which the opportunity available, usually male students reap the benefits (Dekkers et al, 2000). Other than the disadvantage faced by the gender, no such difference in academic progress occurs because of the socio economic diversity (Dekkers et al, 2000). Race Students from many different races come to schools these days including Hispanics, African American and Asians. In the earlier days, the children of the minority race were not welcomed in playgrounds and schools and were a victim of discrimination but now the trend has changed and as a result, children from all races are not only welcomed but considered important for the prestige of the schools as greater number of students from the different minority races show that minorities are celebrated at this place.. There is little encounter to prejudice or biasness on behalf of the students nowadays. Many of the teachers believe that racism has been long gone. The affirmative action programs have resulted in reverse discrimination Most of the children of different races, it has been observed, are better at academics than their white friends but in the long run, this difference doesn’t really count.

The Effect Of Processing Condition

The Effect Of Processing Condition The aim of this experiment is to evaluate the effect of processing condition such as the effect of lecithin on the quality physicochemical properties and organoleptic attributes of burger. The pH for uncooked control and cooked control are 5.77 and 6.04 respectively. Meanwhile for burger with 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0% lecithin, the pH for uncooked are 5.86, 5.49, 5.48 while for cooked are 6.06, 6.05, and 5.80. The fat for uncooked control and cooked control are 8.50% and 10.25% respectively. Meanwhile, for burger with 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0% lecithin, the fat for uncooked are 4.16%, 5.32%, 9.54% while for cooked are 10.59%, 0.27%, 12.91% respectively. The moisture for uncooked control and cooked control are 32.40% and 54.73% respectively. Meanwhile, for burger with 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0% lecithin, the moisture for uncooked are 68.86%, 52.29%, 64.92% while for cooked are 59.59%, 45.13%, 60.68% respectively. The protein for uncooked control and cooked control are 13.71% and 3.91% respectively. Meanwhile for burger with 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0% lecithin, the protein for uncooked are 16.39%, 15.94%, 16.57% while for cooked are 14.33%, 23.82%, 17.25% respectively. The ash for uncooked control and cooked control are 2.54% and 6.73% respectively. Meanwhile for burger with 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0% lecithin, the ash for uncooked are 2.51%, 12.25%, 5.68% while for cooked are 2.97%, 10.25%, 2.79% respectively. Introduction: Burger and other product manufacturing can use fresh or frozen meat as the starting raw material and both systems have particular advantages and disadvantages in the logistics of processing. It can be argued that, for frozen products, which can be regulated by formulation and process effects, the quality difference between fresh frozen is minimal and product quality is far more likely to be dominated by intrinsic quality of the meat via the factors mentioned previously. However the physical properties are highly influenced by temperatures have a profound effect on manufacturing and indeed on the processing methods that can be used. (C.P Mallett, 1993) Fat content has a basic effect on various physic-chemical and sensory characteristics as flavor, mouthfeel, juiciness, texture handling, bite, heat transfer etc. The food industry has responded to consumer demand by offering an ever-increasing variety of low-fat meat choices. Most fat replacers currently in use are reformulations of previously used meat ingredients. (Ozlem Tokusoglu et. Al, 2003) Other factors that contribute to the organoleptic acceptance of the burger are the type of binder, the mixing time, temperature and time of cooking. Addition of soy proteins as meat substitutes provide to cut costs. These substances example lecithin can withstand stresses due to various forms of processing and preparation. Processed and whole meat products can be improved by adding soy protein, which provides the product flexibility and cost stability consumers demand. Adding soy protein to meat and poultry products can enhance moisture holding, texture, binding and cohesion, product yield, juiciness, protein quality, appetizing color and appearance, longer shelf-life, palatability and total nutrition. The ground meat enhancer comprises not only the whey protein concentrate or isolate, starch, maltodextrin and non-fat dry milk, but may also include additional spices and flavor modifiers to further erihance the organoleptic qualities of these meat products. These include, for example, seasonings and spices, such as onion powder, salt, pepper, vegetable oil, corn starch and tapioca starch, non-hygroscopic dried whey and the like. When all the ingredients are combined, a cream to off-white free flowing powder is prepared. In this experiment students will learn the methods and effects of processing of beef patties with varying amounts of lecithin added into the formulation. Materials and methods 2.1. Material Required amount of beef meat, fat, salt, sugar, garlic, black pepper, lecithin (optional) and warm water were prepared as the table below: Ingredients Mass(g) Beef meat 1000 Fat 150 Sugar 16 Salt 20 Garlic 10 Black pepper 6 Lecithin(optional) 0.5%, 1.0% or 1.5% Warm water 2.2. Apparatus Meat cutter, meat grinder, mincer /silent bowl cutter, burger mold, weighing machine, plastic line, wrapper freezer and nat.stick pan/griller 2.3. Sample preparation Burgers were prepared by divided to two parts of preparation. Part 1: Production of Burger The frozen meat was cut into small pieces. Meat pieces were washed and the dry meats were dripped. With using meat grinder, the meats were grinded. After that, all ingredients except fat were put in silent bowl cutter and the ingredients were mixed for 5 minutes. Then, fat was added in the mixture and continuous mixed for another 10minutes until ingredients were homogeneous. Homogeneous mixture was transferred into mold. Mold was pressed to obtain a patty of approximately 80g. Patties were placed in a stack of 10 with plastic liners in-between. Patties were wrapped in a plastic bag. Lastly, the evaluation on frozen patties was done on the following week Part 2: The effect of incorporation of lecithin on the quality of burger The frozen meat was cut into small pieces. Meat pieces were washed and the dry meats were dripped. With using meat grinder, the meats were grinded. After that, all ingredients except fat were put in silent bowl cutter and the ingredients were mixed for 5 minutes. 0.5, 1 and 2% of lecithin were dissolved by weight of total ingredients. Then, fat was added in the mixture and continuous mixed for another 10minutes until ingredients were homogeneous. Homogeneous mixture was transferred into mold. Mold was pressed to obtain a patty of approximately 80g. Patties were placed in a stack of 10 with plastic liners in-between. Patties were wrapped in a plastic bag. Lastly, the evaluation on frozen patties was done on the following week. 2.4. Analysis Analysis Both parts of preparation were analyzed based on measurement actual weight of mixture and the number of patties in plastic bag. The overall weight of patties also analyzed. Then, the weight of cooked patties and the average weight, determination of proximate analysis (fat, moisture, protein and ash), pH and Thiobarbituric acid value (TBA) for uncooked and cooked patties were analyzed. Then, the diameter in a hot stick pan or a giller was measured until cooked. Analysis of sensory properties of patties The sensory properties of the cooked patties were analyzed based on texture, flavor and overall using 5 point hedonic scale: 1-like extremely 2-like moderately 3-neither like or dislike 4-dislike moderately 5-dislike extremely 3. Results Discussion 3.1 Results (Raw data): Table 1: Average diameter and average weight of the burger with and without lecithin Control (without lecithin) Lecithin Uncooked Cooked 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% Uncooked Cooked Uncooked Cooked Uncooked Cooked Average Diameter (cm) 9.90 6.90 9.73 7.23 9.50 7.57 9.50 7.10 Average Weight (g) 79.56 53.47 80.00 63.31 80.95 52.91 79.68 63.61 Table 2 : proximate analysis of burger with and without lecithin Control (without Lecithin) Lecithin Uncooked Cooked 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% Uncooked Cooked Uncooked Cooked Uncooked Cooked pH 5.77 6.04 5.86 6.06 5.49 6.05 5.48 5.80 Fat 8.50 10.25 4.16 10.59 5.32 0.27 9.54 12.91 Moisture 32.40 54.73 68.86 59.59 52.29 45.13 64.92 60.68 Protein 13.71 3.91 16.39 14.33 15.94 23.82 16.57 17.25 Ash 2.54 6.73 2.51 2.97 12.25 10.25 5.68 2.79 Table 3: Sensory characteristic on different lecithin content on burger Lecithin (%) Texture Flavour Overall 0.0 3 3 3 0.5 1 2 2 1.0 2 3 2 2.0 2 3 3 Key: 1- Extremely like 2- Like moderately 3- Neither like or dislike 4- Dislike moderately 5- Dislike extremely Table 4: overuse weight of burger on different lecithin content Lecithin (%) 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 No. of patties 29 28 30 29 Actual weight of mixture 2.3802 2.236 2.045 2.203 Overuse weight of patty 0.0602 0.0035 0.0027 0.0048 Emulsifier plays essential roles in burger processing. It contributes to the dough strengthening, crystal modification besides facilitates in the aeration and foam stabilization. Emulsifier is also function as a binding agent in burger processing. Theoretically, the inclusion of a binding agent increases the stability of a patty at the cost of a little loss in flavor. Temperature, coarseness and moisture levels of ground meat and other ingredients greatly influence the binding properties of a patty. The emulsifier that was used in this experiment is lecithin. Soy lecithin consists of three types of phospholipids; phosphatidylcholine (PC), phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) and phosphotidylinositol (PI). It is extracted from soybean oil and is generally used as a natural emulsifier or stabilizer in various food applications (Awazuhara H et al., 1998). It has low solubility in water and in aqueous solution its phospholipids can form liposomes, bilayer sheets, micelles or lamellar structure depending on hydration and temperature. This results in surfactant that is classified as amphoteric. During emulsification, the nonpolar groups embedded in fat while the polar group extends into the aqueous phase. The used of lecithin in burger preparation caused the meat to bind closely and hence gave good quality burger. Lecithin also helps in binding the water in the meat. By binding water, these ingredients can improve yields and packaged product appearance. The emulsifying properties of lecithin can reduce the impact of raw material variations and prevent fat release. Functional concentrates can also improve texture, juiciness and slice-ability in finished meat products. And because they are tolerant of the multitude of conditions associated with processed meat procedures, they function without changing current manufacturing processes (Wilson N.R.P., 1981). Fat is also used as one of the ingredient in burger preparation. The main role of fat is to retain the juiciness in the meat. Other than that, fat also contributes to the flavor and aroma of the burger. This is resulted by the volatile fatty acid when the burger is cooked. While for salt, it brings out natural flavors of the burger and makes it more palatable and acceptable. In burger preparation, salt also acts as preservatives to retard the growth of spoilage microorganisms. Salt gives proper texture to burgers. It is also used to create the gel necessary to process meats and sausages. As a result, more heavily processed foods usually contain more salt. Different percentages of lecithin (0.5, 1 and2%) were used in this experiment in order to study the effect of incorporation of lecithin on the quality of burger. The parameters that were use to determined the effects of lecithin in burger are diameter and weight of burger, pH value, moisture content and proximate analysis for all fat, protein and ash. Sensory evaluation was also carried out in order to assess the sensory attributes of the burger after it was cooked. Diameter and weight In this experiment, different percentage of lecithin (0.5, 1 and 2%) was used in order to study the effects of lecithin in the changes of diameter and weight of the burger before and after cooking. Based from the result, it is observed that the diameter and the weight of beef burgers with or without lecithin decreased after they were cooked. This is primarily associated with the removal of water or the loss of moisture in the beef burger during cooking (Rhee KS et al., 1982). When burger is cooked it shrinks. This may be due to some change in the fibrous tissue, or to coagulation of the muscle fibre (Vincent Lewis, 1901). The à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€¹Ã…“shrinkà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢ takes place at 63 °C, and is relatively more important in these days of shortage of meat. All meat will shrink in size and weight during cooking. The amount of shrinkage will depend on its fat and moisture content, the temperature at which the meat is cooked, and how long it is cooked. Basically, higher cooking temperature will causes greater shrinkage. Cooking burger at moderate temperatures will reduce shrinkage and help retain juices and flavor. Overcooking draws out more fat and juices from ground beef, resulting in a dry, less tasty product. As percentage of lecithin used is increased, the water-holding capacity of the burger also increased. Thus, the shrinkage supposed to be less severe. However, for 1% lecithin the shrinkage was the most compared to the o thers. The loss of weight for burger that contained 1% lecithin is 28.04 g. This high amount might be due to the over cooking time as heat tends to shrink the patties (Tony Rosenfeld, 2007). pH The pH of the meat burger were increase with the percentage of addition of lecithin, which was mainly due to the higher pH values of soy lecithin ( Das ,Anjaneyulu, Gadekar, Singh and Pragati, 2008). The pH for cooked burger were higher than the uncooked burger due to the natural compound that present initially in the uncooked meat and melting and breakdown of fats, organic acids, and nitrogen containing compound during heating (Brown, 2008). Proximate analysis The moisture content before and after cooking were differ for the control meat burger samples with the treatment. For the control, the cooked sample had higher moisture content than the uncooked samples. But, for the samples that treated with lecithin, the moisture content of the meat burger is higher in uncooked burger compared to the cooked burger due to the loss of moisture during cooking. Exposing meat to high temperature shortened the muscle fiber, denatured protein, and caused the meat to dehydrate (Brown, 2008). The moisture loss for 2% lecithin added was the least compared to 0.5% and 1% lecithin due to the presence of lecithin which minimized the loss of water-binding capacity. The fat content of the treatments were higher compared to the control, and the higher the percentage of lecithin used, gave the higher percentage of fat content in the cooked samples. It was clearly showed that the addition of lecithin helped to minimize the loss of fat during cooking as the meat fat were melt as it is cooked. Fat in the emulsified products immobilized and stabilized by the formation of protein interfacial membrane and protein matrices. The adsorption of protein on the surface of fat globules decreased the interfacial energy, and denaturation of the adsorbed protein lead to the formation of a protein gel matrix that enhanced the emulsion stability (Fennema, Parkin and Damodaran, 1996). The ash and protein content of the control and treatments were not differs very much. It indicated that lecithin did not affect the ash content to the burger patties. The percentage of ash content for cooked meat burger was higher than the uncooked burger. Sensory attributes For the sensory characteristics, the panelist preferred the cooked burger with 0.5% lecithin because of its tenderness that influenced by the role of the lecithin. It acted as the binding agents that bind the protein with the fat as well as moisture to keep the good texture and prevent dehydration during cooking. Other than that, lecithin helped to give consistency to the distribution of fat and protein throughout the burger patties. It also prevents the loss of fat because the fat that presence in the burger patties will melt during high temperature processing, which increased tenderness, juiciness and flavor (Brown, 2008). The control sample was the least like samples because ità ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢s hard and dry texture due to moisture loss during cooking. The panelists gave similar score to the control and samples with treatments in terms of flavor, showed that lecithin did not help in improving the flavor of meat burger. The role of lecithin can only be seen in the aspect of texture quality but not in flavor. For the overall acceptability, samples that treated with 0.5% and 1% lecithin were preferred compared to the control and 2 % lecithin. Control sample gave low eating quality in terms of the texture, while high intensity of lecithin also lowered the consumer acceptability. Tenderness of the meat burger can also be increased by the addition of salts in the form of potassium, calcium, or magnesium chlorides. These salts retain moisture and breakdown the component that surrounds the muscle fibers, resulting in the release of proteins (Brown, 2008). Conclusion: The use of lecithin has potential as a functional ingredient to improve the cooking properties of burger patties. Better fat and water retention reduce the cooking losses. The substitution of the main meat component constitutes an additional textural benefit to the meat burger and can cut the cost of production. Least, besides an equivalent overall acceptance for some of the extended product, the use of citrus lecithin may be attractive to some consumers as a positive alternative to conventional fillers in meat products.

Deformed Digital Evolution Essay -- Technology Technological Papers

Deformed Digital Evolution Modernist visual form has substantially influenced the digital world; however, the digital world of today has been more prominently influenced by the sequential technological growth and the ever-changing aesthetic tastes of our diverse society. These conditions can further be described as mankind’s drive for efficiency and the contrasting effects of people desiring to be different or to stand out. In this essay, an attempt is made to show how the accomplishments of the late Victorian era, regardless of how closely their lineages seem to be linked, are themselves simply steps in the timeline of progress and are really invalid to use as the true â€Å"producer† of the modern digital world. The time period in and around the beginning of the twentieth century, according to Manovich, was the greatest time of pioneering and cultivating new techniques. Looking retroactively on the 1920’s from the viewpoint of today we realize that the key artistic innovations of the 1920s were all done in relation to what was then the â€Å"new media†: photography, film, new architectural and new printing technologies At the time, these were truly new media and groundbreaking techniques; additional terminology had to be developed in order to efficiently use and refer to them. The â€Å"new media† and its divisions were all obviously visually oriented. Manovich continues his discussion with referrals to the techniques and artful achievement that followed in the wake of the â€Å"new media† mentioned above. These â€Å"key modern visual communication techniques†1 included â€Å"photo and film montage, collage, classical film language, surrealism, the use of sex appeal in advertisements, modern graphic design, and modern typography.†1 ... ...ld that be reasonable? Continuing on with the evolutional tracking of the computer, we can restate the fact that the keyboard was bred from the invention of the typewriter. The typewriter itself can even be traced back to its origin, the printing press. In the end, almost every link in the evolutionary ladder of today’s digital world can be expressed as an adaptation or modification of the forerunning products. Though it is with reasonably considerable measures that Manovich makes all of his connections of the digital world as it applied to constructivist times, it is truly beyond anyone’s ability to figure out what the construction of the modern digital world is the product of. Far too many people have had their say in its creation. How many of those involved felt as though they were copying the Soviet Constructivist techniques and applying them to today?

Mongolian Effects on Russia and China

In the years between 1100 and 1400 the Mongol empire stretched the farthest of any empire throughout history. Within the massive land under Mongol rule laid the lands of China and Russia. The Mongols knew how to maintain their empire but had different ways of doing it in each part. This lead to the separate, divergent ways of governing the two lands. In China and Russia, the Mongol era brought an immense change in political and economical power. In China, political impact from the Mongols came off much stricter than it did in Russia.The leader of the Mongolians, Kublai Khan guided the Mongols to conquer the Southern Song dynasty. Even though the Mongols had ruled territories, which included modern day northern China for many years, it was not until 1271 that Kublai Khan officially accepted a traditional Chinese style. When Kublai Khan established the Yuan dynasty, he practically conquered all of China. The Chinese weren’t as politically free as the Russians. For example Chines e were not allowed to inter-marry. He also banned Chinese scholars from learning Mongolian script and kept the two militaries separate.Mongol political control in Russia was different than China. One could argue that Mongolia was slightly â€Å"looser† with the Russian government. The Russians were aloud a grand prince to lead under Mongolian power but they were forced to pay tribute. Not only did the Mongol rule have a huge effect on the politics of China and Russia but the economy was affected as well. During the Mongolian rule, the China became a heart of trade for the Eastern world. This gave the Mongols complete control of the Silk Road. China had things that so many other places in the world wanted such as silk and porcelain.With a high demand for these Chinese goods the jobs were created, trade flourished, and the Mongolians highly benefited from the booming economy in China. The Mongols had a very different effect on the Russian economy than the Chinese economy. The M ongols caused the Russian economy to crash, which made Russia restart all of its agricultural affairs. This forced Russia to rely generally on peasant labor. Paper money was also being made which caused major inflation. Instead of becoming a hot spot for trade, Russia became weaker do to the economic Mongol torture.

Ethical Decision Making Essay

Abstract Ethics is the branch of philosophy that examines questions of morality, or right and wrong. In this paper we will discuss the philosophical approaches used in ethical decision making. The two approaches that will be elaborated on are the utilitarian approach and the universal approach. Several questions will be addressed, (1) what is the utilitarian and universal approach? (2) How do we use them in the ethical decision making process and (3) examples of how it relate in the field of Criminal Justice? When conflict arises it’s not always possible to decide who is right or wrong; however our moral responsibility is to resolve problems to the best of our ability. The utilitarian and universal theories are two of several philosophical approaches or methods that can be implemented when making these types of decisions (Zalta & Geoff, 2008). The Utilitarian Approach: Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. The utilitarian approach to ethical decision making focuses on taking the action that will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It also focuses on the consequences of the course of action and policy, as well as the affects it has on the well-being of the people directly or indirectly impacted by that action or policy. This approach is used to promote the welfare of everybody by maximizing benefits and minimizing harm (Zalta & Geoff, 2008). For instance, when faced with a situation your first thought or question is what should you do? Once you assess the situation then you would apply which ethical decision is the best action to take. If you implement the utilitarian approach you did so with the intent of producing the greatest balance over harm. Utilitarianism offers a relatively straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any particular situation we may find ourselves in. In the criminal justice field this approach can be widely used. To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account (Velasquez, Claire, Shanks, & S.J). The Universal Approach: The universal approach to ethical decision making is similar to the Golden Rule. The golden rule is best interpreted as â€Å"Treat others as you want to be treated†. Universalism argues that knowledge can and should be applied to everyone in every similar situation (Williams & Arrigo, 2008). This approach can be taken in two steps. First, determine whether or not a particular action should be applied to all people under all circumstances. Second, decide if you would be willing to have that same rule to you. This approach claims that ethical principles hold for all and not for some, it is for everybody without exception (Williams & Arrigo, 2008). In other words if you act a certain way towards another and are not willing to be treated in that same regard than you are in violation of the universal rule. To apply the universal approach correctly we need to take into consideration the effects our decision making have on other people’s lives. We also have to be able to imagine ourselves in the other person’s shoes on the receiving end of the action. Imagine you are a police officer in pursuit of what seems to be a drunk driver, while in pursuit the drunk driver hits a pregnant woman crossing the street. What do you do, do you stop for her and leave a drunk driver on the road, or do you call the accident in and continue to pursue the drunk driver to keep him from potentially killing himself and others. The utilitarian approach would more likely call for back up and continue after the drunk driver, but if we use this same example and compare it to the universal approach, the question then becomes what would you want done to you. Both philosophical approaches are infused with flaws, the use of â€Å"utilitarian† thinking is not always clear of what form of action should be taken or if the action you took will have a favorable outcome for the majority. It is difficult to judge what decision will supply the best way to respond to a situation. The universal approach unlike the utilitarian bases its decisions on the facts that the action taken is best for everyone regardless of the situation or the difference in people. My choice between the two is somewhat tossed, because my belief is that you should do unto other as you would want done to you, but at the same time my desire to ensure the greatest number of success is important to me as well. Within the Judicial system decisions are made with or without the input of others; however it is our moral obligation to ensure that we make the best ethical decisions that we can, because every decision somehow directly or indirectly affects someone else. References Velasquez, M., Claire, A., Shanks, M. M., & S.J. (n.d.). Markula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved from Santa Clara University: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/thinking.html Williams, C. R., & Arrigo, B. A. (2008). Is Morality Relative? The variability of Norms and Values. In C. R. Williams, & B. A. Arrigo, Ethics, Crime and Criminal Justice (p. 77). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Zalta, E. N., & Geoff, S.-M. (2008). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/