Es that shutting down the Baths is contrary to those interests. In order to prevail, the Mayor needs for others to see the issue in this way. So he tells Thomasthat this matter is not just a scientific one; instead, `it is a combination of technical and economic factors’ (Act II, p. 39). The strategy here is to disarm Dr Stockmann by removing the issue from his area of expertise. This approach need not be seen as totally disingenuous. Earlier Hovstad had warned Thomas that things might be more complicated than he realized; `it probably hasn’t struck you that it’s tied up with a lot of other things’ (Act II, p. jir.2010.0097 25). It is certainly true that closing the Baths will have an impact on the welfare of the CGP-57148B molecular weight townspeople. Peter’s second argument may be disingenuous. He says, `I am not entirely convinced by your report that the state of the Baths is as serious as you make out’ (Act II, p. 35). This, in effect, denies that there is a problem, or at least a serious one. Contemporary readers might expect the Mayor to say that the report is based on `junk science’. There are two reasons to suspect Peter of duplicity here. First, whether the Baths are polluted is a scientific matter, and Peter is not an expert in this area nor has he cited reports of experts. Peter seems to be doing nothing more than denying what is for him an inconvenient truth. Second, the Mayor later proposes a solution of his own. But a solution is not needed STI-571 msds unless there is a real problem. Peter advances a third argument, one that appeals to Thomas’s obligations as a member of the governing board of the Baths. The Mayor is the head of this board, and so he is the final authority about all that it does. He says, `But as a subordinate member of the staff of the Baths, you have no right to express any opinion that conflicts with that of your superiors’ (Act II, p. 39). Earlier, even before he was aware of the nature of the problem, Peter had expressed the same principle: `The individual must be ready to subordinate himself . . . to the authorities charged with the welfare of that community’ (Act I, p. 10). This argument, if correct, does not establish substantively what ought to be done regarding the Baths; instead, it shows who ought to make the decision. Peter alludes to a fourth argument, though it is not fully developed. In this case, he appeals to Thomas’s obligations to his own family. `Did you never think what consequences this might have for you personally?’ `For you and your family’ (Act II, p. 37). And later, he adds, `Try to realize what you owe to yourself and family’ (Act II, p. 41). This can be perceived either as a mere threat or as a moral argument. Seen as the former, the Mayor is simply warning Thomas that he will lose his job if he tells j.jebo.2013.04.005 the public about the alleged problem. Viewed as the latter, Peter is reminding his brother that he has obligations as a husband and a father, and his ability to carry out those obligations will be compromised if he follows through with his plan.82 ?MCCONNELLIf Mayor Stockmann is a sincere moral combatant, he believes that he ought to do whatever is necessary for the community’s best interests. Convincing Thomas not to announce to the public that the Baths are tainted is therefore necessary. Peter’s second argument denies that there is such a problem. His first argument–the one that is most honest–asks Thomas to look at the welfare of all potentially affected parties. If he goes public, people in his own town will be harmed. The i.Es that shutting down the Baths is contrary to those interests. In order to prevail, the Mayor needs for others to see the issue in this way. So he tells Thomasthat this matter is not just a scientific one; instead, `it is a combination of technical and economic factors’ (Act II, p. 39). The strategy here is to disarm Dr Stockmann by removing the issue from his area of expertise. This approach need not be seen as totally disingenuous. Earlier Hovstad had warned Thomas that things might be more complicated than he realized; `it probably hasn’t struck you that it’s tied up with a lot of other things’ (Act II, p. jir.2010.0097 25). It is certainly true that closing the Baths will have an impact on the welfare of the townspeople. Peter’s second argument may be disingenuous. He says, `I am not entirely convinced by your report that the state of the Baths is as serious as you make out’ (Act II, p. 35). This, in effect, denies that there is a problem, or at least a serious one. Contemporary readers might expect the Mayor to say that the report is based on `junk science’. There are two reasons to suspect Peter of duplicity here. First, whether the Baths are polluted is a scientific matter, and Peter is not an expert in this area nor has he cited reports of experts. Peter seems to be doing nothing more than denying what is for him an inconvenient truth. Second, the Mayor later proposes a solution of his own. But a solution is not needed unless there is a real problem. Peter advances a third argument, one that appeals to Thomas’s obligations as a member of the governing board of the Baths. The Mayor is the head of this board, and so he is the final authority about all that it does. He says, `But as a subordinate member of the staff of the Baths, you have no right to express any opinion that conflicts with that of your superiors’ (Act II, p. 39). Earlier, even before he was aware of the nature of the problem, Peter had expressed the same principle: `The individual must be ready to subordinate himself . . . to the authorities charged with the welfare of that community’ (Act I, p. 10). This argument, if correct, does not establish substantively what ought to be done regarding the Baths; instead, it shows who ought to make the decision. Peter alludes to a fourth argument, though it is not fully developed. In this case, he appeals to Thomas’s obligations to his own family. `Did you never think what consequences this might have for you personally?’ `For you and your family’ (Act II, p. 37). And later, he adds, `Try to realize what you owe to yourself and family’ (Act II, p. 41). This can be perceived either as a mere threat or as a moral argument. Seen as the former, the Mayor is simply warning Thomas that he will lose his job if he tells j.jebo.2013.04.005 the public about the alleged problem. Viewed as the latter, Peter is reminding his brother that he has obligations as a husband and a father, and his ability to carry out those obligations will be compromised if he follows through with his plan.82 ?MCCONNELLIf Mayor Stockmann is a sincere moral combatant, he believes that he ought to do whatever is necessary for the community’s best interests. Convincing Thomas not to announce to the public that the Baths are tainted is therefore necessary. Peter’s second argument denies that there is such a problem. His first argument–the one that is most honest–asks Thomas to look at the welfare of all potentially affected parties. If he goes public, people in his own town will be harmed. The i.