:
George and the weapons of mass destruction
George is a recently-qualified chemist with a young family to support. He finds it difficult to get a job due to a weak constitution. An older chemist friend tells George that he can get him a well-paid job in a chemical and biological weapons lab. George is not too keen. A child of the sixties, he is opposed to the creation and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. The older colleague sympathises and agrees with his view, but notes that the job is not going to go away. If George doesn’t take it, some other chemist who is a zealous advocate of such weapons will get it. This will invariably result in the speedier development of better, more deadly weapons. What should George do?
|
The choice is this: Don't take the job, fail to support family, weapons are built anyway. Or Take the job, support family and weapons are built. In this scenario, taking the job has more a more positive outcome.
However, personally I find it abhorrent that one of the most well-paid applications of science is this horrendous abuse of it. I, and no doubt George, could not look at myself in a mirror having taken this job, would feel like shit and sink deep into depression. That alone would probably be enough to tear our family apart, and is a good reason not to take it.