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

Question 1

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.

Answer 1

Explicate LaBossiere's "one in a million" chance dilemma and his deontological solution
Explain whether or not LaBossiere implies that the hero should kill one person in an attempt to save the many at risk
Offer an argument that offers moral guidance in the one in a million chance dilemma
Link this argument to the wider, voting ethics debate

Question 2

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?

Answer 2

Explain the steps that Smith takes in order to defend the claim that bad actors can be put to good use in a well-ordered democracy, highlighting Smith's reliance on his claim's parallel in the sciences
Consider how one would have to understand the relationship between voters and well-ordered states if she took Smith's claim seriously
Argue that, on this view, one may have moral reason to act irrationally or badly. Or,
Argue that, on this view, one would never have moral reason to act irrationally or badly

Question 3

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.

Answer 3

Explain Smith's distinction between what one should do and what one owes other people, including his appeal to Mill's distinction between types of duties
Develop an argument either in support of or in objection to the claim that the duty to vote well is a perfect duty, owed to fellow citizens

Question 4

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

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

Question 5

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

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 6

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

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

Question 7

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

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

Question 8

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

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

Question 9

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

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

Question 10

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

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 11

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

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

Question 12

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

Question 13

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