Question 1

In his essay, Smith outlines three conditions for calling voting bad. Which of the following is NOT one of those conditions?

Accepted Answer

A)  It is irrational 
B)  It can clearly be shown to be motivated by deeply immoral beliefs 
C)  It is based in ignorance 
D)  It is for a morally corrupt candidate 
A)  It is irrational 
B)  It can clearly be shown to be motivated by deeply immoral beliefs 
C)  It is based in ignorance 
D)  It is for a morally corrupt candidate D

Question 2

In his essay, Smith rejects a claim related to the question of voters' responsibilities. What is it?

Accepted Answer

A)  You can vote for whomever you want, however you want 
B)  Non-voting does not fulfill your obligations 
C)  You have a duty to vote well or to not vote at all 
D)  You should vote well if everyone will vote like you 
A)  You can vote for whomever you want, however you want 
B)  Non-voting does not fulfill your obligations 
C)  You have a duty to vote well or to not vote at all 
D)  You should vote well if everyone will vote like you C

Question 3

In his essay, LaBossiere makes an analogy between not voting for any evil candidate and what?

Accepted Answer

A)  Choosing whether to save a drowning murderer 
B)  Being forced to ride a runaway trolley 
C)  Comparing two torture devices to each other 
D)  Deciding whether to aid a villain 
A)  Choosing whether to save a drowning murderer 
B)  Being forced to ride a runaway trolley 
C)  Comparing two torture devices to each other 
D)  Deciding whether to aid a villain D

Question 4

In his essay, LaBossiere suggests that the ideal utilitarian citizen would respond to the question of how to vote in what way?

Accepted Answer

A)  By not voting at all 
B)  By voting for the lesser of two evils 
C)  By not voting, and engaging in other positive activities instead 
D)  By voting for a non-evil, third party candidate 
A)  By not voting at all 
B)  By voting for the lesser of two evils 
C)  By not voting, and engaging in other positive activities instead 
D)  By voting for a non-evil, third party candidate

Question 5

In his essay, Smith affirms that it is his view that "bad voting does violate our obligations of justice."

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 6

In his reply, Smith discusses the difference between what two things?

Accepted Answer

A)  Voting and advocacy 
B)  Advocacy and running for office 
C)  Voting and being a moral person 
D)  Democracies and dictatorships 
A)  Voting and advocacy 
B)  Advocacy and running for office 
C)  Voting and being a moral person 
D)  Democracies and dictatorships

Question 7

In his essay, LaBossiere uses the insights from two moral theories in order to defend his position. What are they?

Accepted Answer

A)  Contractarianism and contractualism 
B)  Consequentialist ethics and deontological ethics 
C)  Egoism and altruism 
D)  Consequentialist ethics and virtue ethics 
A)  Contractarianism and contractualism 
B)  Consequentialist ethics and deontological ethics 
C)  Egoism and altruism 
D)  Consequentialist ethics and virtue ethics

Question 8

In his reply, Patrick Taylor Smith distinguishes between what one should do and what one owes other people. He appeals to John Stuart Mill's distinction between types of duties. In your essay, explain this distinction. Then, defend or object to this claim: the duty to vote well is a perfect duty, owed to fellow citizens.

Accepted Answer

Explain Smith's distinction between what

Question 9

Both LaBossiere and Smith are interested in the question "How should you vote?"

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 10

In his essay, Patrick Taylor Smith argues that "well-ordered institutions not only filter out bad information, they can actually put irrational or uninformed actors to good use in order to help the process generate even better outputs." In your essay, explain the steps that he takes to defend this claim, including his reliance on this claim's parallel in the sciences. On this view, what relationship to voters have to well-ordered institutions? Would there ever be a case where one might have a moral reason to act irrationally or badly?

Accepted Answer

Explain the steps that Smith takes in or

Question 11

At the close of his reply, LaBossiere makes three statements. Which of the following is NOT one of those statements?

Accepted Answer

A)  Bad voters should not vote in okay states 
B)  Bad voters can vote in very good states 
C)  Good voters should vote in very bad states 
D)  Good voters should not vote in very bad states 
A)  Bad voters should not vote in okay states 
B)  Bad voters can vote in very good states 
C)  Good voters should vote in very bad states 
D)  Good voters should not vote in very bad states

Question 12

In his essay, Michael LaBossiere considers the view that
 voter has no obligation to intervene when the odds of making a difference are miniscule-especially when doing so would make them a party to evil. Going back to the villain example, it would be as if the villain told the hero that if they killed the person, the villain would offer a one in a million chance of sparing the many.
In your essay, explain this dilemma, as well as the deontological reasoning that LaBossiere uses to solve it. While he is worried that "this view would entail that people should not even bother to try when the odds are terrible," it may seem odd to imply that the hero should kill the person. Is this what LaBossiere is suggesting? Finally, answer the question, "How do you think that that the hero should respond in the one in a million situation?," relating your answer to the voting ethics debate.

Accepted Answer

Explicate LaBossiere's "one in a million

Question 13

In his essay, Smith argues that in a well-ordered democracy, bad voters are _____:

Accepted Answer

A)  Harmless or even beneficial 
B)  Especially harmful and corrupt 
C)  A necessary evil 
D)  Better assets than decent or excellent voters 
A)  Harmless or even beneficial 
B)  Especially harmful and corrupt 
C)  A necessary evil 
D)  Better assets than decent or excellent voters

In his essay, Smith outlines three conditions for calling voting bad. Which of the following is NOT one of those conditions?

In his essay, Smith rejects a claim related to the question of voters' responsibilities. What is it?

In his essay, LaBossiere makes an analogy between not voting for any evil candidate and what?

In his essay, LaBossiere suggests that the ideal utilitarian citizen would respond to the question of how to vote in what way?

In his essay, Smith affirms that it is his view that "bad voting does violate our obligations of justice."

In his reply, Smith discusses the difference between what two things?

In his essay, LaBossiere uses the insights from two moral theories in order to defend his position. What are they?

Both LaBossiere and Smith are interested in the question "How should you vote?"

At the close of his reply, LaBossiere makes three statements. Which of the following is NOT one of those statements?

In his essay, Smith argues that in a well-ordered democracy, bad voters are _____:

Dustin Crummett and Chad McIntosh, “Introduction to the Left and Right”

Dan Bonevac and Gillian Brock, “America First”

Nicole Hassoun and Jason Brennan, “Foreign Aid”

Peter Jaworski and Hrishikesh Joshi, “Immigration”

I. G. and Saba Fatima, “Religious Tests”

Bruno Verbeek and Michael Huemer, “Taxation”

Mark Reiff and John Gaski, “Minimum Wage”

Seth Mayer and Dan Shahar, “Environmental Regulation”

Sam Fleishacker & Sherry Glied and Chris Freiman, “Right to Healthcare”

Christopher Tollefsen and Nathan Nobis, “Abortion”

Tully Borland and Megan Hyska, “Political Correctness”

John Corvino and Ryan Anderson & Sherif Girgis, “Religious Exceptions”

Loren Cannon and Vaughn Baltzly, “Bathroom Bills”

Dan Lowe and Spencer Case, “Privilege”

Philippe Lemoine and Rebecca Tuvel, “Feminism”

Travis Timmerman and Dan Demetriou, “Removing Historic Monuments”

Stephen Kershnar and Kristina Meshelski, “Affirmative Action”

Annabelle Lever and Allan Hillman, “Racial Profiling”

Luke Maring and Tim Hsiao, “Guns”

Mark Zelcer and Jen Kling, “Military Spending”

Filters

Exam 21: Michael LaBossiere and Patrick Taylor Smith, “Voting Ethics”

In his essay, Smith outlines three conditions for calling voting bad. Which of the following is NOT one of those conditions?

In his essay, Smith rejects a claim related to the question of voters' responsibilities. What is it?

In his essay, LaBossiere makes an analogy between not voting for any evil candidate and what?

In his essay, LaBossiere suggests that the ideal utilitarian citizen would respond to the question of how to vote in what way?

In his essay, Smith affirms that it is his view that "bad voting does violate our obligations of justice."

In his reply, Smith discusses the difference between what two things?

In his essay, LaBossiere uses the insights from two moral theories in order to defend his position. What are they?

Both LaBossiere and Smith are interested in the question "How should you vote?"

At the close of his reply, LaBossiere makes three statements. Which of the following is NOT one of those statements?

In his essay, Smith argues that in a well-ordered democracy, bad voters are _____:

Dustin Crummett and Chad McIntosh, “Introduction to the Left and Right”

Dan Bonevac and Gillian Brock, “America First”

Nicole Hassoun and Jason Brennan, “Foreign Aid”

Peter Jaworski and Hrishikesh Joshi, “Immigration”

I. G. and Saba Fatima, “Religious Tests”

Bruno Verbeek and Michael Huemer, “Taxation”

Mark Reiff and John Gaski, “Minimum Wage”

Seth Mayer and Dan Shahar, “Environmental Regulation”

Sam Fleishacker & Sherry Glied and Chris Freiman, “Right to Healthcare”

Christopher Tollefsen and Nathan Nobis, “Abortion”

Tully Borland and Megan Hyska, “Political Correctness”

John Corvino and Ryan Anderson & Sherif Girgis, “Religious Exceptions”

Loren Cannon and Vaughn Baltzly, “Bathroom Bills”

Dan Lowe and Spencer Case, “Privilege”

Philippe Lemoine and Rebecca Tuvel, “Feminism”

Travis Timmerman and Dan Demetriou, “Removing Historic Monuments”

Stephen Kershnar and Kristina Meshelski, “Affirmative Action”

Annabelle Lever and Allan Hillman, “Racial Profiling”

Luke Maring and Tim Hsiao, “Guns”

Mark Zelcer and Jen Kling, “Military Spending”

Filters