FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

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

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study Flashcards

Question 1

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

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

E) C) and D)
F) A) and B)

Correct Answer

verified

C

Question 2

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

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

E) C) and D)
F) B) and D)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 3

Essay

Review LaterAdd Note

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?

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 _____:

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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