How would you debate this?

[Moxxie]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey guys -

I'm in the middle of my oncology module and we have some "student debates over controversial topics" coming up. I really wanted to debate the right to die issue, but this is the one that I'm stuck with:

"In your neighborhood there is a factory where you are employed. The job in the factory provides your sole household income. The factory produces emissions that are a threat to ozone layer. The company cannot change the method of operation to reduce emissions of chemicals that cause ozone depletion. Would you rather -------- Quit OR ------ Stay with the job."

I decided to quit my job. However, I can't come up with any compelling arguments other than I feel like it's a moral obligation not to work for a company that can damage the environment/people's health. I'd feel the same way if I worked for a company that had a history of animal cruelty or inhumane treatment of workers.

I can see the other side of the issue - why should one lowly worker worry about the way their company is run, especially if it's their only source of income? But I don't feel comfortable with this - I think that it's a cop-out.

So what would you guys say? (On either side of the issue.) Be as controversial as you want to be 🙂

 

[VCU2011]

Quit- If they are doing harm to the environment they are going to be shut down anyways if in case they really can NOT change their method. An argument could be that you do not want to work for an company that may not be around 5 or 10 years from now. There is no point in establishing seniority of the plant is going to be shut down. Go work for a company that may be around for a while so that you can establish seniority and actually move up in the company without having to live in the constant fear of being closed down and starting back at square one 5 or 10 years down the road.

 

[Farmercyst]

Quit because your dream occupation is becoming a pharmacist and the hours at the factory conflict with your school schedule.😀

I do think the job security argument is valid especially given the increasing government pressure to reduce greenhouse gases and ozone depleting emissions. If they can't change the process they may become obsolete unless they can prove they produce an essential product that can't be produced any other way or can't be replaced with different technology. So you could start with moral grounds, but back it up with job security, depending on which you feel more strongly about.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Quit, hire a quack physician to say the place gave you cancer, sue them for millions, retire to somewhere nice.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Anonymously call the EPA.

 

[rxlynn]

Well - depending on what your theoretical company is making, it could be affecting your health as well as the ozone layer if the company is not compliant with all the applicable OSHA standards. And, believe me, any company that is making anything chemical has a boatload of things they are required to do to make sure that the working environment is safe. If you have any specific information about substance, you could research how that is actually made chemically and therefore what things might be potential workplace hazards.

 

[evilolive]

I would stay with my job. If that's my sole source of income, I don't have the luxury to split hairs of finer morality. I need to put food on the table for my family - who cares if it's hurting the rest of the world? Things are different when life sucks.

 

[Epic]

Save the world or save your family?

So sacrifice the family to save the world or make the world a better place by taking care of your family...

Ozone depletion? big f'kin deal... are we really harming the environment? Global warming? El Nino? Depletion of the rain forest? Extinction of exotic animals and plants? Big deal... we tend to give ourselves too much credit..

Our lives are very insignificant when it comes to earth and space... little damages we cause aren't harming earth...earth will carry on with or without us. We're on borrowed time...

Or one small asteroid...and we're gone... or one large volcano eruption can do more damage than all the carbon emission we have ever caused.

Take care of your family. That's the right thing to do. The environment will take care of itself. The earth will be here long after we're gone. Unless we evolve to adapt to new environment.

Until then...live your life to the fullest.

 

[Epic]

You said be controversial.

So here you go. Screw the environment. It's not that important. We're not introducing anything new to the environment. Matter can not be created nor destroyed....we're just transforming them from one form to another and from one place to another.. Earth cares not.

We cause extinciton? Big deal...take a picture of it. T-rex extinct... but we have the bones and the Jurassic Park the movie..

Earth is warmer? Good... cuz it was really really cold in Vermont last week.

Floods? I recall the biggest flood we ever saw was caused by God himself.

Destruction of the rain forest? We'll plant more trees here.

Too much CO2? Plants need CO2 to photosynthesize.

Too much UV radiation? Good for the sunblock industry.

I could go on and on...

 

[Epic]

And your diehard liberal classmates will have a stroke... when you say "screw the environment." But ask them... why is preservation of environment important? I'm really curious what they'll say...

Then ask them...."Ok..I'll quit the job so we can protect the environment....then will you support me financially if you so believe that protection of the enviornment is that important? If not... then STFU."

 

[VCU2011]

Screw the environment.

Interesting comment coming from someone who has posted so many awesome pictures of the environment...Those shots wouldn't look nearly as cool with an ash gray backdrop we would be calling the sky.

 

[Epic]

Interesting comment coming from someone who has posted so many awesome pictures of the environment...Those shots wouldn't look nearly as cool with an ash gray backdrop we would be calling the sky.

have you heard of photoshop?

 

[Epic]

Interesting comment coming from someone who has posted so many awesome pictures of the environment...Those shots wouldn't look nearly as cool with an ash gray backdrop we would be calling the sky.

Let me make it clear.. I'm throwing it out there for a debate sake..

But if it comes to "beautiful nature picture vs family starving" I think I know that the priority is the family.

 

[Old Timer]

I'm mostly with Epic.... I don't say screw the environment. I do say if the factory meets all state and federal regulations, you do not have a moral obligation to sacrifice yourself and your family. The evidence for global warming is pretty solid. The evidence for the damage caused by global warming is pretty thin.

Some things to think about:

Scientific Consensus Changes: Thirty years ago, "The Scientific Community" was certain the world was cooling. Oops.....

Next Al Gore says sea level will rise 1 foot in the next 100 years. Guess what, see level rose 1 foot in the last 100 years and New Jersey is still beach front and not under water.

Just to let you know, if the world does get warmer, there will probably be lives saved as cold kills more people each year than heat....

As a pharmacy student, you want evidence also known as proof, not theoretical mumbo jumbo that masquerades as proof. It is known that free radicals cause cancer. It is also known that Vitamin E reduces free radical activity. You would assume that Vitamin E would prevent cancer. In reality it doesn't. The world we live in is far more complex than A causes C and B blocks A therefore B prevents C. That's the global warming logic. As bad as DDT is for the environment, it sucks for Condors, since it was banned, the incidence of malaria is off the charts. Watch out for the law of unintended consequences.

It doesn't mean global warming is not a concern that needs to be addressed, it just means the sky is not falling....

Ask them for proof...... They don't have any.....

 

[Epic]

Well,

You need to certainly attack the merit of ozone depletion and the impact. No doubt ozone depletion is real. But what adverse effects result from it? Increased UVB and increased cancer? Dead planktons due to high UV radiation? No proven correlation at this time.

No sense in letting your family starve because you want to prevent skin cancer in South America and trying to save the planktons.

Send sunblock to needed people with the money earned from working at the factory.

 

[tussionex]

screw the environment.

it has adapted before and will adapt again.

your "moral obligation" is to feed and care for your family.

the only way i would say "quit" is if the factory is in danger of being shut down and you would lose your job anyway.

 

[soyroger]

I'd go with keep your job, but argue it differently than evil or epic. I'd base my argument on the premise that its irrational to sacrifice your 1st priority (self and family preservation) in order to serve the 2nd or lesser priority (partially save the environment). I'd be explicit that I care about the environment, but my hands are tied when it comes to bucking the system by quiting. Then I'd break down false assumptions about relationships between decision making and motive. That would include the false notion that if you decide to keep your job then you therefore condone the company's actions or you don't care for the environment.
Figure that those who would vote against you in the debate for the choice of keeping your job will do so b/c they think you are selfish and don't seem to be concerned about others, so point out how the most good you can do is for your own family. Quiting will potentially benefit the greater good but in a minuscule way and at a great sacrifice. Making the audience think you'd be cruel for leaving your family high and dry will garner sympathy for deciding to keep the job. Just don't let them find reason to hate you for it.
There's really just those two focal points; help them like you for your decision and keep them from hating you for not deciding the other way.

We did some debates last semester, but we were assigned the topic as well as our stance (pro or con). I ended up on the pro side for legalizing marijuana. Interesting, but I would have chosen the other side if I could have.

 

[Amraam]

Quit, hire a quack physician to say the place gave you cancer, sue them for millions, retire to somewhere nice.

Nice, whats sad is people is its so true.

Dont quit, not in your best interests. Enviromental concerns are a nice luxury of the rich.

It would be irrational to quit because of that concern, its is like not wanting to drive to work because you will add another car to rush hour traffic and conjestion.

 

[confettiflyer]

Do not quit, you'd be a fool to do so. You'd quit, not be able to get a new job, go on welfare, which stresses government funds, causing higher taxes, causing lower productivity and problems across the entire economy. People will not be able to afford things like hybrids or "environmentally friendly" (read: expensive) options, thus causing more environmental damage.

But seriously...who cares? Do you really think the earth is truly permanently affected by human activity? What kind of self-centered idea is that..that man is so important, that our species alone has the power to "save the planet" or ruin it entirely. That's a bunch of bull.

Oxygen producing species caused a mass extinction by releasing "toxic" oxygen, but the earth itself is fine. We'll probably cause a mass extinction sometime later...but I guarantee you 1M years from now, the earth will be just fine.

 

[confettiflyer]

Just to let you know, if the world does get warmer, there will probably be lives saved as cold kills more people each year than heat....

I actually look forward to global warming. It'll be fantastic.