The facts of the case are these. George has a PhD in chemistry and is having difficulty finding work. His wife has taken a job to support them which brings up the problem of who will watch their small children. His friend has told him that he can get George a job with a company that does research into the field of chemical and biological warfare. George is skeptical about taking this job because he is opposed to this type of warfare. His friend raises another issue. He says that if George doesn't take the job, someone else who is not opposed to chemical warfare will get the job and this person will do the job with more zeal. His friend also tells him that his refusal of the job will not make it or the company go away.
The key facts in the situation are that George desperately needs work, that he is opposed to working for a company that does research into chemical and biological warfare, and that if he doesn't take the job someone else with more zeal for it will.
The fact that there is a problem of someone watching the children is a secondary issue.
The debate or concern in this situation is whether or not George should take the job. On the one hand, if he takes the job, he will be able to support his wife and children but will be working on something he is morally against. He could eventually be responsible for something that has the potential to harm thousands or millions of people. Also, if he takes the job he may not work to the best of his abilities, as he is opposed to what the company is doing. He would not be fulfilling his duty to his employer. On...