Electronic Surveillance Invasion Of Privacy Philosophy Essay

Electronic Surveillance Invasion Of Privacy Philosophy Essay Electronic surveillance has become part of our everyday life for quite some time by now. When we make a call to most service companies or organizations, we almost always hear the computer voice: Forreason, this phone call is monitored. When we go to work, turn on the computer, it says on the screen: your activity is monitored. Everywhere we look, we found surveillance cameras, on the street, in the mall, at school We found them in the United States as well as most of the other countries in the whole world. Over ABC news, one day I heard about the humming bird the US military was developing to help the troops in the field. It is remote controlled, looks and flies like a humming bird, with a camera on it. Ive never been too worried about the privacy issue until I see this little bird flying around. Its so small, it has the ability to go basically everywhere. If its used in the military, who can say its never going to be used by general public? If everybody can buy one, is it possible for somebody to buy one as a toy and fly it around the park? Or how about a kid flying it around the apartment building or the neighborhood? Will we need to get rid of all the windows of our houses to have some privacy? The news keep reporting a lot of cases in which the criminals were caught because of the use of electronic surveillance. Whenever this happens, most people might think its really a good thing. It is definitely good if video cameras only catch bad guys, but thats never going to be possible, it either catchs everything or nothing at all. Watching the crimes being committed on a video would sure brings definite evidences the same as hearing the criminals talk about their crimes on the phone. In court, electronic surveillance has been very successful. But as communications advance, the surveillance techniques has became more and more intrusive to privacy. One has to agree that electronic surveillance does play an important role in criminal investigation in this information era, but we also cant deny the fact that its very intrusive and its even becoming more and more intrusive because of the advancing technology. Ethical dilemma Now, weve reached a ethical dilemma here. First of all, electronic surveillance is helpful in law enforcement. Definitely no doubt at all. In fact, law enforcement agents requests lots and lots of information from all sorts of organizations, from wiretaps, surveillance cameras, to cell phone locations and e-mails. The most familiar one we all know is whenever there is car stolen, robbery broken in, or anything, surveillance cameras films are pulled out to the light to identify criminals. Some of the things we might not know as much: in 2006 alone, AOL received about one thousand request from the law enforcement on a monthly basis; in 2009, the website Face book received more than ten request daily; some cell phone companies even have websites, so the police can use the data from it freely. Overall, thousands of electronic surveillance are ordered every year by the law enforcement. Or we might even say, for solving almost every crime, there is some type of electronic surveillance used . On the other hand, privacy concern is getting more and more of an issue. When the very early type of surveillance was used, like wiretaps, they are only conducted on people who are suspected of some sort of crime, not on regular legitimately behaved citizens. But after surveillance cameras came into play, everything, everybody is monitored, legitimate or not, guilty or not, people are all watched all the time in work place, on the street or most public places. Luckily, we still have our privacy left in our own home if we want. But if later on, the little humming bird come into life, we might as well lose that, by then, there would be barely any privacy left if any at all. Then what shall we do as a society? Should we keep current surveillance, or even add lots more to make the world a safer place to live? Or should we get rid of all the surveillance, and all the advance technology and go back to what we had during the very early days? Or do we want to use the surveillance and at the same time protect privacy as much as possible? How do we approach that? Analyzing by the use of ethical theories Kant First of all, lets see what Kant would say about this situation. Kants Categorical Imperative (First Formula) says: to act only from the moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws. We might put the moral rule this way: it is okay for the law enforcement to use electronic surveillance. Now, in order to evaluate this morale rule, we try to put it into a universal rule. Law enforcement can use electronic surveillance whenever they want. Since surveillance works very well, if the court accepts any evidence from electronic surveillance, and law enforcement is allowed to put surveillance over anybody at any place any time, we might find surveillance cameras everywhere, maybe even in our bedrooms or bathrooms. Thus, by then, people would have no expect about privacy anymore. Under such circumstances, people who want to conduct criminal activities wont be doing it under public light, or anywhere that electronic surveillance can reach, they might be doing it in underground tunnels or under the water, or they might invent some type of shield or clothes such that the cameras wont go through, or whatever way thats possible. Of course they wont be using phone calls, or e-mails or any other electronic communication methods. They might be using pigeons or bugs or whatever works to send messages. So, by then, all the surveillance we have wont be useful any more, thus the idea that surveillance will help fight crimes, catch criminals wont be true any more. So we conclude it would reach contradictory when we try to universal the rule. Then, Kants Second Formulation of Categorical Imperative points out it is wrong for one person to use another person. When the law enforcement use wiretap on a suspect, Kant would probably say its okay. But for the cases of surveillance cameras and other surveillance which targets all the people in general, the law enforcement are using the legitimate people trying to find out who the criminals are. Those people who are lawful citizens should not be treated as means to an end. So it is wrong for law enforcement to watch over everybody trying to find the bad guys. Act Utilitarian Act utilitarian uses the Principle of Utility to just moral issues, it believes an action is right if it increases the total happiness of all the affected parties, and an action is wrong if it decreases the total happiness of the affected parties. Lets say law enforcement is using surveillance cameras in neighborhood parks in order to detect possible criminal activities. Now, lets try to determine all the affected parties and the change of their happiness. First of all, the camera is there to watch over the park, so the police department dont need as many patrols out there, that would save them some money. Also, cameras are on twenty-four hours a day, and it shows absolute evidence, people can watch it, replay it, it most likely will even work better than if a patrol is there in person. The camera might help to keep the criminals away, make it a better neighborhood to live in, thus everybody in the neighborhood will benefit. On the other hand, people who lives around the park, maybe going there quite a few times a day, and dont feel like being watched all the time, so they might chose not to go to the park at all. Especially, people who live right by the park might worry the cameras could possibly see what theyre doing in thei r house, that might cause them great discomfort. They might even move away from the park to free themselves. In this case we need to decide which side weights more, if there is barely anybody living around the park, and there are a lot of criminal activities going on over there, utilitarianism might say its better to have some surveillance cameras there. But for the places where many people live around with very rarely any criminal activities happen, it might not be such a good idea to put surveillance cameras there. The only problems here is, most likely, where there are more people, there are more crimes happening. Rational people would agree not much crimes are happening deep in the forest. So the issue becomes, the places where surveillance cameras are most in need are places where there are more people, but at the same time, thats the place where we would appreciate not having the cameras. Rule Utilitarian Rule utilitarianism holds that we should use those moral rules which, if followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness. Now lets look at the same universal moral rule as we used for Kant: Law enforcement can use electronic surveillance whenever they want. If law enforcement can use whatever surveillance they want and it holds up in court, they would not hesitate to use it, since that would make them break into the criminal cases way easier. Thus we might came upon such scenario: everybody is required to wear a cap with a camera on it, or a pair of earrings with tiny cameras on the bottom, so the law enforcement can watch over all our activities, thus nothing will go hidden, no criminal activities will go without being find out. Then we will be living in an absolute transparent world. How about if the technology advance so much, people might invent something that could tell if people are thinking evil, if such detection chip is planted in everyones head, then, surely, there wouldnt be any crimes happening at all. If there is no crimes on the world, all the legitimate citizens would definitely benefit. Also, if there is no crimes, we probably dont even need the entire justice branch of the country, or any attorneys, or weapons or such, thats going to be a great big save. If there is no crime, everybody will have lot less to worry about everyday, it should be way easier for people to stay happy. The first negative consequence of such an universal adoption of electronic surveillance is that its going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money to have all the cameras installed, all the special software or device designed and produced to put into use. Also, a lot of law enforcement personals would be needed to monitor all these many people in the country. Whats the ratio of law enforcement to citizen? One to five? Ten? Thats a question. The most harmful consequence of massive electronic surveillance would be the unhappiness caused to people by having very little privacy. Were born to love freedom, nobody love to be watched all the time. If people are not happy living in this country, theyll go somewhere else where freedom and privacy is valued more. Thus, US as a nation, will be downgraded, less and less people will want to come and work here, our own best elites will definitely seek opportunities elsewhere, the whole country and everyone inside would be worse off. In conclusion, the possible harm caused by adopting the universal moral rule seems to exceed the possible benefits. So the rule utilitarianism would probably say using electronic surveillance for law enforcement is wrong. Social Contract Theory Social contract theory states that it is morally right for one person to act according to a moral rule that is accepted by rational people because of the mutual benefits of adopting such a rule, given others follow the rules as well. To apply social contract theory, we identify the rational agents and their rights. The morality of the action of the law enforcement depends on whether the privacy rights of the people is violated. Most of us would agree having privacy is one way the society gives to rational adults on the account that they will be responsible for whatever they do. We dont give much privacy to babies or toddlers, because mostly they dont know what they are doing, and they need somebody to watch over them, also we generally dont hold them responsible for what they do. We as adults, take care of them, and are responsible for their behaviors. If were being watched over like babies, would that imply we dont know what were doing, and need some supervision all the time? If thats the case, how can the law enforcement know what they are doing, on what ground can they have the right and ability to watch our the rest of the world? Should they themselves be watched over at the same time? On the other hand, if were treated like babies, we shouldnt be responsible for what we do. Some might argue we dont have rights to privacy the same way as we have right to life and to our own property. But we mostly would agree, giving people some privacy have many benefits. Privacy gives people the opportunity to do what they please, to be themselves, to grow in their own unique way. Generally speaking, people expect privacy when they are in their private places, such as bedrooms; people expect certain things to be private such as how much money they have in the bank; or what they said to their girlfriend or boyfriend or such. Privacy is valued in our society, a rational people would agree, having some privacy is good to everybody because nobody wants to live under a camera and have other people watch how many times they went to bathrooms or even how many scars are over their bodies. In conclusion, according to social contract theory, it is wrong for law enforcement to use electronic surveillance because it violates the privacy of the general public. Consequences if electronic surveillance is not allowed Now, look at the other side of the issue. What would happen if electronic surveillance is not allowed at all? Of course we would have our privacy back, people will be living a happier life being able to do what they please without being watched. But what about law enforcement? Will we be able to capture any criminals? Were better off than our ancestors in many ways, such as, we have better clothes, better food, better education and so on. But the world is also getting more and more dangerous, all the newest technology, the advance in education also made it possible for some criminals to do huge damage to the society. If electronic surveillance arent allowed in court, will we be able to catch those people and put them in jail? The chances might be very low. If criminals figure out the law enforcement cant reach them, most likely theyll do a lot more damage, if people know they cant be caught for the bad things they do, most likely theyll keep doing it, and other people who use to be legitimate person might even find out stealing from other people is way easier than working hard to gain something, if lots of other people are doing it, why cant they? Computers are used by almost everybody here in US, people conduct crimes on co mputers, some might sell illegal things on the web, some might sent viruses to destroy other peoples computer, all sorts of bad things could happen, thus it is becoming increasing important that the law enforcement can stay on top of the technology and keep the criminal activities under control. If there are all legitimate people on the world, then we sure dont need any surveillance, we can have all our privacy. But thats not the case, then, some type of surveillance will be needed to watch over those who are trying to damage the society. Decision and Implementation From the point of view of Kant, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, and social contract theory, we have all concluded it is wrong for the law enforcement to use electronic surveillance for law enforcement. But on the other hand, because of the advancing in technology and education, criminals these days are becoming very good at covering what they do, so surveillance is needed in lots of ways to protect the general public from the harm the criminals might cause, and it is important for law enforcement to have some electronic surveillance, so they can effectively catch those criminals and give the punish they deserve, thus people will be living in a much more safer environment. Now we realize we all want as much privacy as possible, but we also want to live in a safe place where criminals are punished for the bad things they do, thus electronic surveillance becomes something we dont like, but we got to have some. That happens a lot in life, suppose somebody might dont like vegetables at all, but because of the benefits vegetable brings, they have to eat some, since they all want to live a healthy and long life. But at the same time, they might be able to find all sorts of ways to make the vegetables tastier to their desire, so they will more likely want to eat it, even possibly enjoy eating it. Now how should we implement such theory on electronic surveillance? How can we use it in such a way that brings more beneficiary than damage? Congress has already passed many laws relating to protecting peoples privacy, such as the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and so on, but the technology is advancing so rapidly, which makes it hard for the congress to react and come up with new law regarding new issues. So, first of all, we will need a group of elites who possess the newest technology in the legislative group, so they will be able to come up with supportive laws as fast as needed. This way the gap between new technology and the laws will be luckily filled up. On the other hand, its a good idea to use every possible way to actively promote virtues in people in the country, higher education is one way to pursue this, high education will bring people up to some level of understanding about how the society function as a whole, how is it important that everybody in the whole nation, whole world need to work together to make the universe a better place to live in. Other than that, good economy, good living condition, good relationship between family members and relatives and friends, all those together will give people a sense of belonging, make people happier and such that not as many people will be thinking about committing crimes, which then leads to less surveillance needed, so in return well all have more privacy. Also, another very important part is how can we make sure our law enforcement personals are well trained about how important it is to stick to their code of professional ethics, such that people can trust them not to misuse priva te information, and there should be strict laws to regulate when such things does happen. If legitimate person can trust law enforcement to only use their information for specific reasons, they would be more willing to provide such information and give away some of their privacy.

Anti-hero on Clockwork Orange and the film Unforgiven

The Idea of an antithesis to an anti-hero began its first appear in literature as early as in the Greek novel Don Quixote, but the bloom of a modern time anti-hero can be traced back to the period of Romanticism. Through the view of an anti-hero, we are ultimately challenged to look at ourselves and our contemporary world and recognize the complexity of human condition.In Clockwork Orange and Unforgiving, the dichotomies relationship between two protagonists Alex and Will Mummy has demonstrated our deeper understanding of the notion of an anti-hero. Alex represents the common men chained by society and their own insignificance and shaped by his world. In abstract, he is Just a representation of his world; the â€Å"†¦ Slot machines†¦ † At the train station symbolizes the corruption of contemporary morals and that Alex is Just another reflection of this world. Similarly, the subverted motif of milk in the text exposes a dual Image of Innocence and transgression.Far fr om being symbols of purity and nurture, â€Å"Innocent milk† which Alex drinks portrays the child-Like act contaminated as an instrument to heighten their inclination for â€Å"ultra violence†, furthering the idea hat Alex is a product of his environment. In other words, Alex is the inevitable socially and environmentally influenced personality of our nature and our world. Also, Alex shows common traits of anti-hero, the absolute lack of masculinity and heroism through his acts of violence and impotency.His vandalism In the train â€Å"†¦ To pass the three minute ride†¦ † Suggests that violence Is a source of entertainment and amusement In the matters of something as simple and common as time. Even though his brutality and ignorance are immature and despicable, it is also that sense of free rein to his violent impulses which makes him human. When violence is used against him and makes him â€Å"good†, it implies that that goodness is inauthentic and only driven by deterministic mechanism.Therefore, Alex illustrates that true goodness comes from within and evil is necessary in being a complete human being. On the other hand, Will Mummy depicts a starkly opposite anti-heroic qualities to Alex but an anti-hero that Is far Innately human condition. The literal metaphor of Will Mummy rolling in mud emphasizes everything he sacrificed to become a decent paternal figure. Likewise, he recognizes and accepts his past morally baseless man that killed †¦ Everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. † , and thus indicating he is debased of any pretension.The close shot of Will rejecting a â€Å"free one† represents his self-actualization which pervades the film until Will divorces his quest. Throughout the film, his Incessant allusion to his wife as the reason for his arc of change highlights that we as humans are complex, more confusing and more relating by our nature. Moreover, the old western setting in unforgiving effectively lends itself to the anti-hero. In such harsh and desolate environment, Will's financial hardship leads IM to be morally ambiguous to survive and allows him to commit villainous acts for good reason.In addition, the sense of lawlessness In the Old West empowers the significant role of the sheriff as the absolute personification of law. Similar to Will ruthless enforcements. Not only that, Little Bill's dramatic foil highlights the utilization of violence in Will's morally ambiguous quest. Through Will, we can identify the scarred humanity innately progressing through the world. In the comparison of Alex and Will Mummy, amalgamation of good and evil, use of violence and ironic moral ambiguity could be understood as a full-value representative of an anti-hero.It is clear that in spite of differences in background and social frailties, both protagonists employ violence in defense of individuality or to survive. The dark side of Will's nature resurfaces at the en d revealing his failure to remain a noble man, and Alex is deprived of the possibility to choose which signifies free will and existence of the self. Moreover, the visual depiction of Will and Ale's anti-heroism motivates us to reflect more on our self-actualization and positions us to hate and feel moral ambiguity bout the character and towards the character.They are portrayed to have flaws but held fast to their true nature, and thus show the real human nature. To conclude, the two dichotomous characters are Juxtaposed and combined to represent two anti- heroes that we can realistically and sympathetically relate to in spite of their undesirable true nature, furthering that they are necessary and fundamental part of human nature. Therefore, the realistic traits of an anti-hero exemplify the complex human nature and ultimately connect us to their lack of conventional greatness and our own world and humanity.

Defending the Play Trifle Essay

In the play, Trifles by Susan Glaspell, is about a murder mystery of Mr. Wright. The men; the court attorney, sheriff, and Mr. Hale, a neighorbor to the Wright family, and the women; the sheriff’s wife, Mrs. Peter and Mrs. Hale, solve the mysery in two very different ways. The men show up at the house as a crime scene, and only focusing on the bigger, important elements of a murder mystery. As Mr. Hale was trying to explain everything he saw in the house that morning of Mr. Wright’s death, he said â€Å"She was rockin’ back and forth. She had her apron in her hand and was kind of – pleating it (1154)†. Meanwhile, Mr. Hale was looking for Mr. Wright, Mrs. Wright was kind of subtle and said you can’t. Mr. Hale was confused. All she said then was he has been murder. All three men go upstairs to talk and investigate the body. One the otherhand, the women approach the house as a home, and focusing on the trifles, meaning small detail or unimportant, such as baking mess, unfinished sewing, and unwashed pans & cleaning. As the women are worried about Mrs. Wright’s trifles in the house the men like to make fun of them. For example, Hale stated, â€Å"Well, women are used to worryin’ over trifles (1156)†. Mrs. Wright loved making preserves as her fruit froze in the freezer and made a big mess that the two women were worried about, so the sheriff said â€Å"Well, can you beat the women! Held for murder and worryin’ about her perserves (1155)’. In society, as you can see, men tend to ingore the women’s world, blind to the truth before their eyes. A critic once said Trifles is a lousy play because by the third page we already know who done it, so there isn’t much reason the sit through the rest of the play. A murder mystery does not have to keep the reader in suspense to who the culprit was, but why the culprit did it. The key element in the play Trifles is motive, the reason or emotion that drives a person to do something. What made Mrs. Wright drive to kill her husband? As the men look for any possible motive, the women talk to one another about Mrs. Wright. They end up finding a bird cage with a broken door, but they find no bird. Another possible movite uncovered by the women is the discovery of the dead bird. They found the bird, dead, somebody had strangled the bird. So, just because a murder happens early, does not make it a bad play. Works Cited X. J. Kennedy. Dana Gioia. LITERATURE An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing. Trifles. 12 ed. New Jersey: Pearson. 2013. Pages1153-1163.

The Issue Of Concussions And Its Effects - 2617 Words

The issue of concussions has been downplayed for years dating back to when the first forms of professional football came to the U.S. but the past 10 years have been drastically different. We need to be more aware as a society about the negative consequences that occurs with a concussion in the short term and the long run. Researchers claim that concussions can decrease your thinking capacity all the way to even a shortened life span. Most importantly to any claim there is proof; numerous athletes over the years have unfortunately committed suicide because of depression/post concussion symptoms. However, the world runs on money thus lawsuits by former athletes are starting to be very common as most have lost their career earnings due to addictions. The real issue is how can we as a society limit concussions from having such terrible effects. This research paper details the social and economic spheres that stem from concussions and their effects. With emphasis on how to prevent trauma tic brain injuries from occurring and the proper rehabilitation steps once one has been sustained. This paper will also address solutions for this issue at hand with regards to prevention, treatment and recovery. In the health world, concussions are finally now deemed as serious issues to physicians and athletic trainers. A couple decades ago, concussions were seen as just â€Å"getting your bell rung† with no long-term effects, that is really tragic when we really look back on it. There were manyShow MoreRelatedAthletes And Concussions With Concussions1738 Words   |  7 Pages300,000 concussions each year (11 Facts). A concussion is a traumatic brain injury that causes swelling of the brain s soft tissue and disrupts normal brain function (Concussion). A concussion has potential to impact memory and coordination for the rest of the athlete s life along with lead to other, more serious, brain injuries. In order for athletes to reduce the effects from concussions, they need to be educated on the symptoms, ways to avoid the injury, and the possible lifelong effects. ForRead MoreThe Effects Of Concussions On Athletes And Concussions1383 Words   |  6 PagesLastly, having multiple concussions produce long term effects on athletes. This was proven by a study performed that compared athletes with a history of concussions to athletes with no concussion history using a concussion test known as: Immediate Post Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT). This is a computerized test that measures memory capabilities to determine if an athlete has a concussion. It was taken by the athletes prior to their season to find a baseline level. This baselineRead MoreEssay about Concussions Around The World685 Words   |  3 PagesConcussions are a rising issue in the daily life of many athletes in the sports of hockey, soccer, football, and skateboarding. Every 21 seconds, someone in this country encounters a brain injury. Concussions are brain injuries caused by jolts or hard hits around the head. When the tissue of the brain slams against the stro ng, thick skull in your head, a concussion is very common. This leads to either swelling of the brain, â€Å"torn blood vessels, or injury to the nerves.† (Haas) Eventually, the resultRead MoreThe Effects Of Concussions On The Brain1698 Words   |  7 Pages Introduction: A concussion is a mild form of traumatic brain injury (TBI) caused by a sudden or violent blow, bump, or jolt to the head. Concussions can also occur from a fall or a blow to the body that causes the head to move rapidly back and forth. These types of sudden or violent impacts make the brain accelerate inside of the skull, in movements called coups and contrecoups. These movements lead to the brain striking the front and back of the skull, damaging the delicate and vital organ. TheRead MoreNfl s New York Giants And San 49ers1651 Words   |  7 Pagesthat vicious, helmet-to-helmet hits are simply â€Å"part of the game† (Battista). For many years, this view, in which concussions are actually considered to be good in the way that they show one’s toughness and dedication to football, has been shared by many players and coaches throughout the league. The generally short length of the effects of concussions (or at least the immediate effects) and the frequency at which they happen have contributed to this dangerously careless perception of the ailment,Read MoreThe Price of Concussions in Sports1084 Words   |  4 PagesLeague of Denial examines the issue of brain injuries in the National Football League. The film devotes most of its attention to the story of Mike Webster, who died at the age of fifty as a result of severe brain injuries suffered throughout his playing career. Webster’s story highlights the devastating effect concussions can have in a short timeframe. Because brain injuries are known to develop quickly it is important that the NFL responds quickly to this concussion crisis. The NFL is the most popularRead MoreConcussions Are Becoming Less Of An Issue Essay1598 Words   |  7 PagesConcussions are becoming less of an issue due to better procedures and management. Many kids who are into contact sports will receive a concussion at some point in their career. This became a serious issue around the early 1990s and is now one of the most serious issues in today s sports. The main concern is trying to know when kids are ready to get back onto the field. Coaches, doctors, and parents are getting worried about the safety of their kids and are skeptical about letting them continueRead MoreConcussions On Football : Is It Worth It?928 Words   |  4 PagesConcussions in Football: Is it worth it? There’s no doubt that concussions in football has become a major problem, not just for the professional athletes, but for kids of all ages from age 8 to 19. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has shown that concussion have doubled in the last decade and The American Academy of Pediatrics says that, â€Å"emergency room visits for concussions in children ages 8 to 13 years old has doubled, and concussions have risen 200 percent among teens ages 14 toRead MoreSports Is The Most Dangerous Sport1464 Words   |  6 Pagesbrain problems because of so many hits to the head, causing them to have a concussion. Concussions damage the brain and create illnesses and diseases the are hard to get rid of. Although sports in all levels are deeply ingrained in the American society, football and hockey are riddled with head injuries and should be changed from the lowest levels through professional sports to lessen the devastating effects of concussions. In today’s society, NFL players and hockey player are the inspiration inRead MoreConcussions And The Brain : One Of The Body s Most Important Organs1028 Words   |  5 PagesImani Harris-May Teacher Lynda Kachman CTE Advanced Studies 4 November 2014 Concussions and the brain: One of the body’s most important organs. The brain is the center of the nervous system; it receives information, interprets the information and guides the body’s response to the information. Three parts of the brain are the cerebrum, cerebellum, and the diencephalon, along with the brain stem. The cerebrum is the largest part of the brain which handles memory, speech, the senses, emotional responses