Tournament: Colleyville | Round: 5 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart ES | Judge: Levi Briajia
Utilitarianism is used to justify racial injustices
Coleman 2020(august 12, 2020, “The Racial Consequences of Utilitarianism” https://medium.com/@writtenbyfc/the-racial-consequences-of-utilitarianism-30ee71f26be7) neth
John Mill’s moral theory of rule utilitarianism proposes that there should be a set of general rules that everyone follows to reach the greatest amount of happiness. The rules are based on the principle of utility meaning that rules should be created to benefit the majority rather than the minority. Another version of utilitarianism, which is credited to Jeremy Bentham, is act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism proposes that whatever action produces the most happiness is justifiable. Unlike rule utilitarianism, act utilitarianism focuses on the single action of an individual rather than the rules. Both Bentham and Mill’s theories of utilitarianism have numerous shortcomings, so I will argue that utilitarianism justifies racial injustice towards African Americans in the U.S.. The problem with utilitarianism is that it can be applied to an ideology or system rooted in racism. After slavery was abolished in America and African Americans were declared free people, they began to faced issues within white American society. Buying a home in new, urban areas was extremely difficult because of a racist strategy called “redlining.” In the 1930’s, redlining was a racist tactic used by banks that denied black Americans and other minorities from obtaining mortgages to purchase homes and loans to renovate homes, regardless of their credit history; at this time, this practice was supported by the U.S. government. Being the majority has more advantages than being the minority; white Americans, which were the majority, feared that African Americans would tarnish these neighborhoods and because the government was mostly white, the U.S. government acted in the favor of white America. In act utilitarianism, this would be permissible because the majority was able to keep the neighborhoods “safe” and avoid living in fear with one action. In rule utilitarianism, this would be permissible to the utilitarians that agreed with the racist system put in place that allowed them to feel safe and happy while putting the minorities’ happiness and safety after theirs. If an action or a rule is made to benefit the majority, then equality can not exist under it; therefore, utilitarianism will always discriminate against the minority in every predicament. To this day, white Americans are still the majority in the U.S., and throughout history, rules and tactics like redlining, separate but equal laws, and so on were put in place to appease them.
Using threats of extinction to justify denying self determination to colonized peoples is unethical genocide and is racist-This method of decision making must be rejected—It is a voting issue.
Mitchell 17 (Audra Mitchell, CIGI Chair in Global Governance and Ethics, Balsillie School of International Affairs, and Associate Professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, former Senior Lecturer in International Relations, department of Politics, University of York, Ph.D. Queen's University of Belfast, "Decolonizing against extinction part II: Extinction is not a metaphor – it is literally genocide," Worldly, 9-27-2017, https://worldlyir.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/decolonizing-against-extinction-part-ii-extinction-is-not-a-metaphor-it-is-literally-genocide/, accessed on 10/31/18
Extinction has become an emblem of Western, and white-dominated, fears about ‘the end of the(ir) world’. This scientific term is saturated with emotional potency, stretched and contorted to embody almost any nightmare, in academic and public contexts alike, it is regularly interchanged with other terms and concepts – for instance, Diffused into sublime scales – mass extinctions measured in millions of (Gregorian calendar) years, a planet totalized by the threat of nuclear destruction – ‘extinction’ has become an empty superlative, one that that gestures to an abstract form of unthinkability. It teases Western subjects with images of generalized demise that might, if it gets bad enough, even threaten us, or the figure of ‘humanity’ that we enshrine as a universal. This figure of ‘humanity’, derived from Western European enlightenment ideals, emphasizes individual, autonomous actors who are fully integrated into the global market system; who are responsible citizens of nation-states; who conform to Western ideas of health and well-being; who partake of ‘culture’; who participate in democratic state-based politics; who refrain from physical violence; and who manage their ‘resources’ responsibly (Mitchell 2014). Oddly, exposure to the fear of extinction contributes to the formation and bolstering of contemporary Western subjects. Contemplating the sublime destruction of ‘humanity’ offers the thrill of abjection: the perverse pleasure derived from exposure to something by which one is revolted. Claire Colebrook detects this thrill-seeking impulse in the profusion of Western blockbuster films and TV shows that imagine and envision the destruction of earth, or at least of ‘humanity’. It also throbs through a flurry of recent best-selling books – both fiction and speculative non-fiction (see Oreskes and Conway 2014; Newitz 2013; Weisman 2008). In a forthcoming intervention, Noah Theriault and I (2018) argue that these imaginaries are a form of porn that normalizes the profound violences driving extinction, while cocooning its viewers in the secure space of the voyeur. Certainly, there are many Western scientists, conservationists and policy-makers who are genuinely committed to stopping the extinction of others, perhaps out of fear for their own futures. Yet extinction is not quite real for Western, and especially white, subjects; it is a fantasy of negation that evokes thrill, melancholy, anger and existential purpose. It is a metaphor that expresses the destructive desires of these beings, and the negativity against which we define our subjectivity. But extinction is not a metaphor: it is a very real expression of violence that systematically destroys particular beings, worlds, life forms and the relations that enable them to flourish. These are real, unique beings, worlds and relations – as well as somebody’s family, Ancestors, siblings, future generations – who are violently destroyed. Extinction can only be used unironically as a metaphor by people who have never been threatened with it, told it is their inevitable fate, or lost their relatives and Ancestors to it – and who assume that they probably never will. This argument is directly inspired by the call to arms issued in 2012 by Eve Tuck and Wayne K. Yang and more recently by Cutcha Risling-Baldy. The first, seminal piece demonstrates how settler cultures use the violence of metaphorical abstraction to excuse themselves from the real work of decolonization: ensuring that land and power is in Indigenous hands. Risling-Baldy’s brilliant follow-up extends this logic to explain how First People like Coyote have been reduced to metaphors through settler appropriation. In both cases, engagement with Indigenous peoples and their relations masks moves to innocence: acts that make it appear as if settlers are engaging in decolonization, while in fact we are consolidating the power structures that privilege us. In this series, want to show how Western, and white-dominated, discourses on ‘extinction’ appear to address the systematic destruction of peoples and other beings while enacting moves to innocence that mask their culpability and perpetuate structures of violence. As I argued in Part I of this series, extinction is an expression of colonial violence. As such, it needs to be addressed through direct decolonization, including the dismantling of settler colonial structures of violence, and the resurgence of Indigenous worlds. Following Tuck, Yang and Risling-Baldy’s lead, I want to show how and why the violences that drive extinction have come to be invisible within mainstream discourses. Salient amongst these is the practice of genocide against Indigenous peoples other than humans. …it is literally genocide. What Western science calls ‘extinction’ is not an unfortunate, unintended consequence of desirable ‘human’ activities. It is an embodiment of particular patterns of structural violence that disproportionately affect specific racialized groups. In some cases, ‘extinction’ is directly, deliberately and systematically inflicted in order to create space for aggressors, including settler states. For this reason, it has rightly been framed as an aspect or tool of colonial genocides against Indigenous human peoples.