In His Essay, Michael LaBossiere Considers the View That

Essay

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.