1400 words max ONLY USE THE TWO ARTICLES ATTACHED no outside sources as for citation style you can pick whichever is best for you
The goal is to answer the following question:
➢We have discussed two accounts of our individual moral obligations (or the lack of any obligations) in the face of climate change: Sinnott. Armstrong’s and Hiller’s.
— These two accounts are opposed to each other. (What are they?)
—Your essay should begin by explaining Sinnott-Armstrong’s view.
—While explaining his view, discuss two moral principles that Sinnott-Armstrong rejects as a basis of individual obligations to not emit greenhouse gas;
— present his arguments for rejecting the two that you have chosen.
-One of the two principles should be the so-called ‘harm principle’ (this is in the slides part 1); you can choose the
other.
— Then, explain why Hiller disagrees with Sinnott-Armstrong’s overall view.
——Conclude your essay by inventing an objection to Hiller’s argument.
o The most important part of this essay grade-wise is the objection at the end. You definitely should not have this be a small after-thought.
o You are welcome to imagine what you think Sinnott- Armstrong might say in reply to Hiller as your objection or you can come up with an objection that is totally original to you. It makes no difference to your grade.
Do not have a conclusion paragraph.
My intro needs to be like this. ——>
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|