In order to have a well-supported valid argument, it must consist of premises that both hold truth value which then leads to a conclusion that must also be true. Given the situation of Larry who is presented with a job, but is concerned that the chemical weapons he will be making will be used in wars causes Larry to question if he should take the job or not. With this situation given, I will present a deductive valid argument that I will prove to be morally correct by referencing principles and facts, explaining each premise in detail, providing an objection to my argument, and lastly proving the objection to be flawed to strengthen my original argument. In this paper, I will argue that Larry has a moral obligation to take the job.
My argument in standard form is as follows:

P1) We have a moral obligation to maximize overall happiness.
P2) Whether or not Larry takes the job, suffering will still occur from other workers making the weapons.
P3) If Larry takes the chemical weapons manufacturer job this will increase his family’s happiness.
C1) Taking the job will increase overall happiness.
C2) Therefore, Larry has a moral obligation to take the job.

This argument is structured around two main principles that come from the book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy. The first principle is that we should do what will benefit the people affected by our actions (Rachels, 2012, p.12). The reason why this principle supports my argument is that Larry is in critical need for a job or else his family will fall on hard times. If Larry were to turn down the job then he and his family will go through difficult times, which this in fact does not benefit or maximize overall happiness for his family who are the ones being affected by Larry’s decision. With the principle that I referenced, I have proved that my argument is the morally correct thing for Larry to do.
The second principle I will provide to strengthen my argument is a principle from Utilitarianism. The principle is defined as an action’s consequences matter only insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals (Rachels, 2012, p. 110). The right action of Larry is the one that produces the most good. What is good? The answer is happiness. This means that an action is right if it produces the greatest overall balance of happiness. With this principle, it proves that Larry should choose to take the job because it produces greater happiness than what would come from Larry denying the job. In result, Larry has a moral obligation to take the job in order to maximize overall happiness.
Now, I will decipher the premises that make up my argument to make it clear for everyone to understand. Premise one; we have a moral obligation to maximize overall happiness means that no matter what we do we should decide to do it to increase happiness. All decisions should be made in the purpose to increase overall happiness. Premise two states that whether or not Larry takes the job suffering will still occur from other workers making the weapons. This can be translated as no matter what Larry decides to do people are still going to be affected negatively because there are three other workers that will gladly take the job. These workers don’t care if suffering will occur. So, whether Larry takes the job or not in the long run suffering is guaranteed to happen. Lastly, premise three states that if Larry takes the chemical weapons manufacturer job this will increase his family’s happiness. This statement means that his