Imagine that the reporter has called you to help them write a follow-up article to the one you’ve selected. They want you to bring your philosophical expertise on rights to bear on the subject. In par

Imagine that the reporter has called you to help them write a follow-up article to the one you’ve selected. They want you to bring your philosophical expertise on rights to bear on the subject. In particular, they want to know what you make of the issue.

Answer the following questions 

Why did you select this topic/article? In other words, why does it matter to you and why should it matter to the rest of us?

How can your philosophical research on rights help news readers understand what’s at stake in this real-world case? In other words, what do you know after taking this class that readers might not?

What are the competing (plausible) sides/perspectives/arguments in the debate? Explain the main views and why they are in tension.

What do you think the correct stance is? This is where you offer your expert opinion (i.e. thesis) on the matter.

Why do you support this position? Use readings from the course to help you build/defend your case. Explain the key ideas in accessible terms that non-experts – who haven’t studied the political theory of rights – can understand. You only need to use one reading, but you’re free to use a few if it makes sense, just don’t get bogged down in describing other people’s essays/views in detail. Only use the bits that are central to support your normative argument on how we should think about/resolve the issue addressed in the news story.

What do you have to say to critics/those who take a different position?

If this issue isn’t resolved as you suggest, what further problems do you forsee arising (in the real world)?

Tips: Consult the Essay Writing Guidelines and Essay Marking Rubric already posted on UMLearn. (You can think of this exercise as testing most of what I’ve asked you to do in your essay, but this time with an eye to addressing real world issues and communicating with someone outside of academia.)

In particular, make sure that you have a clear and explicit thesis. Lead with your thesis and then make sure that everything that follows helps support it. You want your writing/time to be spent as follows: no more than 1/3rd descriptive, 2/3rds or more devoted to your analysis. Give examples, and make sure that you’re engaged in normative reasoning, rather than being focused on purely empirical matters. Be sure that you consider and respond to objections to your thesis.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/what-on-earth-environmental-law-constitution-1.6060749