Framing an Argumentative Debate: 

Lesser Evilism and the Integrity of American Electoral Politics 

The Issue: Establishing Context Using Exhibit Sources 
 
“Thousands  of  lifelong  progressives  supported  Sanders  during  the  2016  Democratic  primaries.  When 
confronted  with  the  remaining  major  party  candidates,  however, many of these voters are considering a third 
party  candidate,  writing-in  Sanders,  or  not  voting  at all. Of course, most of these voters believe that a Trump 
presidency  would  be  detrimental  to  the  security  and  well-being  of  the  nation,  and  recognize  moreover  that 
Clinton  would  likely  be  the  lesser  evil  between  the  two  candidates.  However, many of these same voters are 
refusing  to  vote  for  Clinton  nevertheless.  For  many  of  these  voters,  to  cast  a  vote  for  Clinton  would  be  to 
sacrifice  the  core  progressive  commitments--including,  environmentalism,  abolishing  the  death  penalty, 
ending  unnecessary  wars,  ending  corruption  etc.--they  have  devoted  their  lives  to  advance.  For  other 
progressives,  however,  the  disaster  of  the  Iraq  war  and  the  memory  of the “Nader-effect” on the 2000 Gore 
v.  Bush  election  weigh  heavily  on  their  minds:  The  official  Florida  tally  gave  Bush  the  win  by  537  votes 
(48.847 percent to 48.838 percent), while Nader racked up 97,488 votes.”  
 
The Debate: Raising a Guiding Question Using Argument Sources 
  
Philosophical  Argument  Source  A:  “Another  point  of  disagreement  is  not  factual  but  involves  the ethical 
principle...sometimes  referred  to  as  the  ‘politics of moral witness.’ Generally associated with the religious left, 
secular  leftists  implicitly  invoke  it  when  they  reject  LEV  on the grounds that ‘a lesser of two evils is still evil.’ 
Leaving  aside  the  obvious  rejoinder  that  this  is  exactly  the  point  of  lesser  evil  voting—i.e.  to  do  less 
evil—what  needs  to  be  challenged  is  the  assumption  that  voting  should  be  seen  as  a  form  of  individual 
self-expression  rather  than  as  an  act  to  be  judged  on  its  likely  consequences...The  basic  moral  principle  at 
stake  is  simple:  not  only  must  we  take  responsibility  for  our actions, but the consequences of our actions for 
others  are  a  far  more  important  consideration  than  feeling  good  about  ourselves...​Voting  should  not  be 
viewed  as  a  form  of  personal  self-expression  or  moral  judgement  directed  in  retaliation  towards  major party 
candidates who fail to reflect our values” - Noam Chomsky 
 
Philosophical  Argument  Source  B:  “It  is  absurd  to  demand  of  such  a  man  when  the  sums  come  in  from 
the  utility  network  which  the  projects  of  others  have  in  part  determined,  that  he  should  just step aside from 
his  own  project  and  decision  and  acknowledge  the  decision  which  utilitarian  calculation  requires.  It  is  to 
alienate  him  in  a real sense from his actions and the source of his action in his own convictions.  It is to make 
him  into  a  channel  between  the  input  of  everyone’s  projects,  including  his  own,  and  an  output  of  optimific 
decision;  but  this  is  to  neglect  the  extent to which his actions and his decisions have to be seen as the actions 
and  decisions  which  flow  from  the  projects  and  attitudes  with  which  he  is most closely identified.  It is thus, 
in the most literal sense, an attack on his integrity” - Bernard Williams 
 
CHALLENGE:  ​Using  the  argument  sources  above  and/or  the  concept  list  below,  frame  a debate 
in outline form between two or more positions on the ethics of Lesser Evil Voting: 
 
Principle of Utility  
Integrity 
Overton Window 
 
FOR LEV AGAINST LEV 
The Basic Elements of Introductions:  
Context + Disruption + Response 
 
There are many ways to write a successful introduction, but behind virtually all successful 
introductions is a shared pattern that readers look for in all papers, regardless of discipline or field. 
That common structure consists of three elements:  
 
I. CONTEXT: Establish Common Ground ​Here the writer provides contextual information in 
order to create a shared understanding between reader and writer about the larger issue the writer 
will address, an understanding that the writer will then turn to problematize or challenge. 
 
E.g. The political stakes in the UK and the US are high, yet both countries have of late embraced impractical candidates with 
far-left ideologies. In the UK, those who voted for socialist Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, when he had little experience, may be 
ruing their decision after his failure to to put forward a strong case for the UK remaining in the EU. Meanwhile, in the US, 
Bernie Sanders supporters clung to their candidate even when his remaining in the race diverted Hillary Clinton from focusing on 
Donald Trump [...] 
 
II. DISRUPTION: State Your Problem ​Once common ground has been established, the writer 
then disrupts it with a problem or question that must be resolved: 
E.g. [...] But some might argue that fervent idealism, which places support for a certain candidate above all practical 
consequences of that support, is foolhardy. According to some ethicists, it’s also immoral.“The purpose of voting is not 
to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce 
outcomes,” says Jason Brennan, a philosopher at Georgetown University and author of The Ethics of Voting. “If 
they’re smart, they’ll vote for the candidate likely to best produce the outcome they want. That might very well be 
compromising, but if voting for a far-left or far-right candidate means that you’re just going to lose the election, then 
you’ve brought the world further away from justice rather than closer to it.” [...] 
 
III. RESPONSE: State Your Response ​Once you disrupt your readers' stable context with a 
problem, they will expect you to respond to it in some way. They look for that response (or 
suggestion of a response) in the last few sentences of your introduction. You can state your response 
in one of two ways:either by (i) explicitly stating the gist of your response, or by (ii) implicitly 
promising the reader that you will do so later on. In either case, you should try to give some idea of 
how the discussion will advance your principal claim (note: your claim may be that the issue is 
irresolvable): 
Eg. [...] What can get lost in the kind of strategic voting suggested by Brennan, however, is nuance—opting for the 
more practical candidate usually means opting for something closer to the status quo. In this paper, I argue against 
Brennan on the grounds that strategic voting leaves limited opportunities for perspectives that fall outside party lines, 
thereby leading to a misleading stagnation of the so-called Overton window despite progressive trends in popular 
consensus. 
CONTEXT + DISRUPTION + RESPONSE: 
​THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF INTRODUCTIONS 
 
Read the each of the following Introductions carefully, making note of any general issues. Then do the 
following:  
1. First, assign the Introduction a score (1-10) based on your initial gut impression.  
2. Next, assess whether the Intro contains each of the three essential components (1. 
Context/Common ​Ground; 2.​ ​Disruption/Statement of Problem;​ 3. ​Resolution/Thesis​), and, if so, 
mark the sentences corresponding to each of these components.   
3. Finally, consider whether the grade you gave it was determined in part by the strength, weakness, or 
absence of one or more of the three components. 
——————————————————————————————————————- 
 
1. A very controversial topic in biomedical ethics is the sale of organs. Today, organ trafficking is 
illegal in nearly all countries. However, this has been occurring more rapidly in impoverished parts 
of the world. People in these locations are desperately eager to sell their organs in order to pay off 
debts or even escape poverty. Although it could be dangerous, with proper control and regulation, 
organ trafficking can be morally permissible in order to provide some income to those in 
impoverished locations, but more importantly, provide those suffering with life saving organs. 
 
 
 
2.. The advancement of technology today has given more power to the internet than ever 
before. Anything put out into the web can now go viral in only a matter of seconds reaching nearly 
every corner of the world instantly. People Like Edward Snowden (a previous C.I.A employee that 
released confidential information) and Julian Assange (the leader of WikiLeaks) have taken 
advantage of this technological power to expose secret government information. Some say that 
Snowden and Assange are heroes who help fight the political dragon that withholds precious 
government information from the public. However, I and many others, believe that people like 
Snowden and Assange, who are responsible for the release of confidential and sensitive information, 
are reckless beings who do not consider the possible negative consequences of their actions. To 
protect the public from information that can do more harm than good, the government has an 
obligation to withhold that information from the public. Therefore, it is morally permissible for the 
government to withhold sensitive information from its citizens because it is in the best interest of 
the people.