Natural law perspective & purely rights based perspective.

Consider the following case: Suppose that there are two hypothetical individuals, call them “Steve” and “Jim.” While they have been friends for a
while, Steve has recently come to deeply resent Jim (the reasons are unimportant). Steve hears that Jim is applying for a certain job, and that Jim is
really hoping to get it. Steve knows that he is also qualified for the job, and in fact is more qualified than Jim. He likely would not have bothered to
apply for this particular job, but he realizes that if he were to get the job instead of Jim, that this would cause Jim deep disappointment. Since he
resents Jim, Steve considers applying in the hope of causing Jim emotional distress. Would it be wrong for Steve to do this?
In your paper, you should analyze this question from both a natural law perspective and a purely rights based perspective. You should explain how the
two theories apply to the case. What sorts of considerations would be relevant? What would each conclude about Steve’s decision and why? Then,
based on this analysis, you should argue for which theory, natural law or rights, is more plausible. Your thesis, therefore, will be a defense of natural
law theory or of a purely rights-based theory. Even if you think both theories ultimately would lead to the same action, argue for which one provides
the better reasons as the basis of the decision.