Consider the case of the narrator in George Orwell’s short story “Shooting an Elephant” and his deliberations about whether to shoot the elephant. Select two authors (Aristotle, Mencius, Metz, Kant, Sedgwick, Ross, or Scanlon) and determine which gives a better explanation of the moral position the narrator is in. It will have the following form: 1.brief introductiona.this introduction should include only a description of what you will do in the paper2.a neutral and accurate description of the action at issuea.include only the details that will be relevant to the moral assessments or explanations of the two authors you choose. 3.the explanation philosopher A would give of the action at issuea.this will take three parts. i.first, you must explain what, in general, is morally relevant according to A (and provide citations to support these explanations)ii.second, you must identify the corresponding aspects of the action at issue iii.third, you must explain how A would explain the moral situation the narrator is in. 4.the explanation philosopher B would give of the action at issue a.same parts as 3, except for philosopher B5.an argument that philosopher A/B gives a better explanation a.this is not merely about who correctly evaluates the action, but also about who correctly identifies the reason for the evaluation. b.if you think neither A nor B correctly explains the action, you should identify the morally relevant feature that neither recognize the significance of, or the problem both have in accounting for its significance. 6.optional: responses to objections on behalf of A and/or B 7.brief conclusiona.this should only include: a description of the parts of your paper, your main claim, and (optional) further questions that this raises that might be worth thinking about.In writing, make sure that you make note of any evidence that the narrator agrees with either position, in the portions of the story where he discusses his own judgments about what he ought to do.