A community's drinking water is shown to contain contamination levels
slightly above those recommended by health officials. To lower the
contamination levels would mean diverting tax monies away from
building a new school. Community leaders decide that that the tradeoff
is not justified: the costs of diverting funds from the school to
lowering the contamination levels outweigh the benefits. Discuss how a
deontologist and/or eco-centric theorist might react to this decision.

Greetings Remaxme:

A theme suggestion:

If local children become ill and/or die drinking or bathing from a
contaminated water source, then who will be left to attend the new
school?

Best regards,
journalist-ga

I agree that the situation presented doesn't seem to be the slightest
bit controversial or provide any doubt whatsoever about what actions
would be taken. If the city's water supply has toxins above the
allowable limits, the funds would be used to correct that before
building a new school, without a doubt, from any perspective. A lot
more people use the water than will go to the school, anyway.

omniscientbeing-ga
Google Answers Researcher