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.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q2: In his essay, Patrick Taylor Smith argues
Q3: In his reply, Patrick Taylor Smith distinguishes
Q4: In his essay, LaBossiere uses the insights
Q5: In his essay, LaBossiere suggests that the
Q6: In his essay, LaBossiere makes an analogy
Q7: In his essay, Smith rejects a claim
Q8: In his essay, Smith outlines three conditions
Q9: In his essay, Smith argues that in
Q10: At the close of his reply, LaBossiere
Q11: In his reply, Smith discusses the difference
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents