PPE 101 Final Exam – Spring 2019
Due Dec 18, 2019 by 11:59 PM*Answer two questions 1) – 5a), using about 500 – 650
words for each question.
————————————————————————
– Your work should be distinctive (it should not be a high percentage match with
other papers on Turnitin).
– You must cite all sources, including authors, articles, and web URLs (same style
as previous essays).
– Use the Turnitin Link and submit in Word or PDF format (no .pages as they don’t
work with Turnitin).
– You are welcome to submit a backup copy to [email protected].
* Late essays will be graded minus one full letter grade for each day late (even 12:01 AM of
12/19/2019 counts as late). ** Any essay turned in more than 4 days late (after 11:59 PM on
12/22/2019) is a zero.
*** The only acceptable excuses for lateness are a hospital visit or a family tragedy;
you will have this prompt for two weeks and thus have ample time to meet the deadline.
3) Huemer, in contrast to Downs, argues that people are often “rationally irrational”
rather than (as Downs thinks) rationally disconnected from politics. What does Huemer
mean by this claim? What does he think we should do regarding the problem of rational
irrationality?1 Evaluate: are Huemer’s solutions compelling? Can you think of anything
else we might do other than Huemer’s proposed solutions?
Downs:
Market economics (producers and consumers.. supply and demand) applies to politics (1950s)
Now government is not ideal, now modeling assumptions power, income, privilege.
Voters won’t vote because Marginal Revenue < Marginal Cost
Imperfect information
Likelihood of the vote making a difference.
Ideologies (briefly)
Huemer (rational irrationality):
People could seek the ‘truth’: what the policy will be, how it actually affects them, what their deep values are
Instead, people vote for contradicting clusterings of policies.. and they follow ideologies.
Means-End Rationality: People follow ideologies and parties, and have biased beliefs. Vote with the party, not
seek truth.
Vs.
Epistemic Rationality: Seeking the truth. Having honest discourse + conversations (scientist + MD).
Last couple of pages of Huemer: some solutions to combat bias.
You can look up ‘Civil Discourse’ or ‘Public Deliberation’.
5a) Using one of the three ‘Markets on the Margin’ discussed in class (Legalization and
War on Drugs, Markets for Organs, or Sweatshops), put forward a policy
recommendation that considers philosophical input from at least two authors discussed
in the second half of the course. Your recommendation should include a quick defense of
one or another philosophical/moral position and also consider at least one relevant
counter-argument. You must use examples that are appropriate, demonstrating your
working knowledge of the subject at the level of general policy recommendation. Your
recommendation can provide a cost-benefit analysis, and would need to consider
whether cost-benefit analysis fully captures deep values that are relevant, for example
values regarding fairness or justice, commodification, liberty and autonomy, equality of
opportunity, etc.
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."
"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"
