这是一个加拿大的气候变化相关的essay代写

Your assignment must be in .doc or pdf and must be anonymous: put your student number on it, but
not your name.

Length: 1400 words at most; do not go a single word over.

Identify the word count of your essay at the start of the paper.

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. 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’; 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.

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.

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.

Your introduction should contain a statement of what you will argue and should not be more than three or
four sentences at most. It should be short, concise, and the driest thing you have ever written. For
example, a good introduction would look like: “I will argue that […]. I will begin by explaining […]. I
will then present […]. I will conclude by [….]” You will be tempted to begin your essay with some
useless sentence along the lines of “Climate change is bad” or “Ethicists think a lot about climate
change…”. Getting a high mark on this essay means copying the three-sentence introduction I just
presented (and adapting it to any topic as needed), and not doing anything more.

An objection cannot be pointing out an assumption. An objection cannot be pointing out an unanswered
question. The objection needs to prove the model or something that it is committed to wrong.