Ssue is economic as well as technical. When the overall calculations are done, the Mayor’s proposal will be best for all. The third WP1066MedChemExpress WP1066 argument is procedural rather than substantive–Dr Stockmann has no right to speak publicly about this issue. And the fourth argument urges Thomas to focus on another of his roles, that of husband and father. This kind of `shotgun’ approach makes sense when we consider that Peter believes that as a moral combatant he must prevail. So what does Peter recommend? First: `It will therefore be necessary for you to make a public denial of these rumours’ (Act II, p. 38). This is designed to keep the Baths open and thus preserve the town’s economic interests. But what about the interests of future patrons? `The existing water-supply for the Baths is now an established fact, and must be treated as such. But it is reasonable to suppose that . . . it would be possible to initiate certain improvements’ (Act II, p. 35). The Mayor can thus say that his proposal looks out for the welfare of all. If the rumors can be squashed, the town will continue to flourish economically. If appropriate improvements are gradually introduced, the Baths eventually will be safe for all. It is true that in the short term some patrons may be harmed; but the best outcome for all is the gradualist approach. The fewest people will be harmed the least if this is done.Familial ObligationsPeter is not Thomas’s only moral opponent. His wife, Katherine, also has a moral jir.2012.0140 stake in the situation. Katherine sees clearly that Thomas is likely to lose his job and she knows what that will do to the welfare of their children. Katherine points out that if Thomas continues his fight with Peter, he will probably lose his job. Thomas retorts that `at least I shall have done my duty by the public . . . and by society’. Katherine makes the obvious reply: `But what about your family, Thomas? What about us at home? Will you be doing your duty by the ones you should provide for first?’ (Act II, p. 42) Mrs Stockmann believes that she has an obligation to promote the welfare of her children, and that Dr Stockmann is bound by this same requirement. She need not believe that these are their only moral requirements, though in the passage quoted she implies that their du-ties to the children trump all others. What she suggests to Thomas is that his first duty is to provide for his family. If she convinces him of this, it will enable her journal.pone.0158910 to discharge her duties that are imperiled by the moral combat. But readers need not doubt her sincerity here. We may presume that she believes that Thomas’s first duty too is to his family. Katherine advances two other arguments, more pragmatic in nature, designed to convince Thomas to comply with Peter’s request. She says that Peter, as Mayor, is far more politically powerful than Thomas. The doctor replies that he has right on his side. Katherine’s response: `Right! Yes, of course. But what’s the use of right without might?’ (Act II, p. 41) The point of this argument is that even if Thomas’s position is morally the best, he is likely not to prevail. Thus, he will exert energy and sacrifice his own interests, and still fail to achieve the desired end. This seems to render his sacrifices PXD101 web fruitless. Katherine’s other pragmatic argument is a critique of Thomas’s idealism. When Thomas complains that he has been treated unjustly by Peter, Hovstad, Billing and Aslaksen, Katherine agrees. `Yes, they’ve treated you disgracefully, I will say that.Ssue is economic as well as technical. When the overall calculations are done, the Mayor’s proposal will be best for all. The third argument is procedural rather than substantive–Dr Stockmann has no right to speak publicly about this issue. And the fourth argument urges Thomas to focus on another of his roles, that of husband and father. This kind of `shotgun’ approach makes sense when we consider that Peter believes that as a moral combatant he must prevail. So what does Peter recommend? First: `It will therefore be necessary for you to make a public denial of these rumours’ (Act II, p. 38). This is designed to keep the Baths open and thus preserve the town’s economic interests. But what about the interests of future patrons? `The existing water-supply for the Baths is now an established fact, and must be treated as such. But it is reasonable to suppose that . . . it would be possible to initiate certain improvements’ (Act II, p. 35). The Mayor can thus say that his proposal looks out for the welfare of all. If the rumors can be squashed, the town will continue to flourish economically. If appropriate improvements are gradually introduced, the Baths eventually will be safe for all. It is true that in the short term some patrons may be harmed; but the best outcome for all is the gradualist approach. The fewest people will be harmed the least if this is done.Familial ObligationsPeter is not Thomas’s only moral opponent. His wife, Katherine, also has a moral jir.2012.0140 stake in the situation. Katherine sees clearly that Thomas is likely to lose his job and she knows what that will do to the welfare of their children. Katherine points out that if Thomas continues his fight with Peter, he will probably lose his job. Thomas retorts that `at least I shall have done my duty by the public . . . and by society’. Katherine makes the obvious reply: `But what about your family, Thomas? What about us at home? Will you be doing your duty by the ones you should provide for first?’ (Act II, p. 42) Mrs Stockmann believes that she has an obligation to promote the welfare of her children, and that Dr Stockmann is bound by this same requirement. She need not believe that these are their only moral requirements, though in the passage quoted she implies that their du-ties to the children trump all others. What she suggests to Thomas is that his first duty is to provide for his family. If she convinces him of this, it will enable her journal.pone.0158910 to discharge her duties that are imperiled by the moral combat. But readers need not doubt her sincerity here. We may presume that she believes that Thomas’s first duty too is to his family. Katherine advances two other arguments, more pragmatic in nature, designed to convince Thomas to comply with Peter’s request. She says that Peter, as Mayor, is far more politically powerful than Thomas. The doctor replies that he has right on his side. Katherine’s response: `Right! Yes, of course. But what’s the use of right without might?’ (Act II, p. 41) The point of this argument is that even if Thomas’s position is morally the best, he is likely not to prevail. Thus, he will exert energy and sacrifice his own interests, and still fail to achieve the desired end. This seems to render his sacrifices fruitless. Katherine’s other pragmatic argument is a critique of Thomas’s idealism. When Thomas complains that he has been treated unjustly by Peter, Hovstad, Billing and Aslaksen, Katherine agrees. `Yes, they’ve treated you disgracefully, I will say that.