Essay Writing Tips: Choose Either Topic 1, 2, Or 3

Essay Writing Tipschoose Eithertopic 1topic 2 Or Topic 3 To Answ

Choose either Topic 1, Topic 2, or Topic 3. To answer these topics completely, it takes a minimum of 350 words. Use the topic questions and the scoring rubric to see if your draft responds fully to all parts of the question. A complete thoughtful answer is more important than word count.

Topics for your Essay, Choose one:

• Topic 1: Respond to The Moral Dilemma of Climate Change at the top of page 440. Should we pay now to try and rein in global warming and its awful effects, or should we let our kids pay? Do we have moral obligations to future generations, to people who don't yet exist? If we do have obligations to them, how much should we sacrifice now to do our duty?
• Topic 2: Explain and defend your views on the following: Is there anything wrong in offering unauthorized immigrants "a path to citizenship"? Should children brought into a country illegally ever be deported?
• Topic 3: Respond to Singer or Hardin at the top of page 829. What would be the proper moral response of rich nations to this impending tragedy? Do you favor Garrett Hardin's approach in which rich countries would not send food aid? Or Peter Singer's path in which affluent individuals would be obligated to give much of their wealth to feed the hungry? Or a middle way in which the rich would have a duty to give some aid but would also have obligations to themselves and to their family and friends? Explain your view.

Paper For Above instruction

The selected topic for this essay is Topic 1: The Moral Dilemma of Climate Change. This topic explores whether humanity should take immediate action to combat global warming or wait, potentially burdening future generations with the consequences. Addressing this dilemma involves considering moral obligations to future generations, evaluating the ethical responsibilities of current societies, and debating the extent of sacrifices required to ensure a sustainable planet for those unborn.

Climate change presents one of the most pressing moral dilemmas of our time. Scientists warn of catastrophic effects if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, including rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and loss of biodiversity. The core ethical question is whether present generations have a duty to intervene proactively, spending resources now to curb emissions, or whether they should adopt a deferential approach, leaving future generations to bear the costs. This debate hinges on the concept of moral obligations to those who do not yet exist—future humans who will inherit the earth under changed environmental conditions.

Proponents of immediate action argue that moral principles of stewardship and intergenerational justice compel current societies to act decisively. They contend that the choices made today will significantly influence the well-being of future generations. If we accept that future humans have rights comparable to ours, then sacrificing some current comfort and economic growth to reduce emissions becomes an ethical imperative. This perspective invokes the precautionary principle, suggesting that failure to act risks irreversible harm, and thus we bear a moral responsibility to prevent catastrophic climate outcomes.

Conversely, opponents of immediate, costly measures emphasize the importance of present-day needs and economic considerations. They question whether it is morally justifiable to impose significant sacrifices on current populations—such as increased taxes or curtailed development—especially when the precise effects of climate policies remain uncertain. Some argue that the economic costs may outweigh the benefits, or that the burden should be distributed equitably across nations, prioritizing poverty reduction and economic development in the developing world. Such views challenge the notion of intergenerational justice, suggesting that moral obligations to future generations should be balanced against current economic realities and social needs.

Ethical frameworks like utilitarianism support taking actions that maximize overall well-being across generations. From this perspective, safeguarding the environment to ensure future prosperity is a moral duty, even if it requires sacrifice now. Conversely, a libertarian approach might advocate for less intervention, emphasizing individual rights and free markets, thus skeptical of government-enforced restrictions. Many scholars advocate for a middle ground: enacting policies that promote environmental sustainability while considering economic and social constraints, thus respecting both current and future interests.

In conclusion, the moral dilemma surrounding climate change fundamentally revolves around intergenerational justice. Recognizing our moral obligations to future generations compels us to consider the long-term impacts of our actions today. A responsible society will seek balanced solutions—prioritizing sustainable development, technological innovation, and ethical responsibility—to ensure that future generations inherit a planet capable of supporting life in all its diversity. The moral imperative is clear: acting now is not just a pragmatic necessity but an ethical duty rooted in our shared humanity and global responsibility.

References

• Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford University Press.
• Jamieson, D. (2014). Ethics and climate change: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). The expanding circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress. Princeton University Press.
• Lomborg, B. (2001). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge University Press.
• Page, E. (2012). Climate Change and Intergenerational Justice. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 9(2), 173-191.
• Caney, S. (2010). Justice and the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 13(1), 189-208.
• Broome, J. (2012). climate matters: Ethics in a warming world. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon & Schuster.
• Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press.
• Hardeen, G. (1974). Living within limits. Oxford University Press.