Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Alex Rivera
My standard is maximizing expected well-being.
Plummer, PhD, 15
(Theron, Philosophy @St. Andrews http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/05/moral-agreement-on-saving-the-world/)
There appears to be lot of disagreement in moral philosophy. Whether these many apparent
AND
be acting very wrongly." (From chapter 36 of On What Matters)
2. Science proves non util ethics are impossible and our version of util solves all aff offense
Greene 10 – Joshua, Associate Professor of Social science in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University (The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul published in Moral Psychology: Historical and Contemporary Readings, accessed: www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Developmental/Greene-KantSoul.pdf)
What turn-of-the-millennium science is telling us is that human
AND
religion, they don't really explain what's distinctive about the philosophy in question.
3. Uncertainty and social contract require governments use util
Gooden, 1995 (Robert, philsopher at the Research School of the Social Sciences, Utilitarianism as Public Philosophy. P. 62-63)
Consider, first, the argument from necessity. Public officials are obliged to make
AND
proceed to calculate the utility payoffs from adopting each alternative possible general rules.
McCluskey 12 – JSD @ Columbia, Professor of Law @ SUNY-Buffalo
(Martha, "How the "Unintended Consequences" Story Promotes Unjust Intent and Impact," Berkeley La Raza, doi: dx.doi.org/doi:10.15779/Z381664)
By similarly making structures of inequality appear beyond the reach of law reform, the "unintended consequences" message helps update and reinforce the narrowing of protections against intentional racial harm. Justice is centrally a question of whose interests and whose harms should count, in what context and in what form and to whom. Power is centrally about being able to act without having to take harm to others into account. This power to gain by harming others is strongest when it operates through systems and structures that make disregarding that harm appear routine, rational, and beneficial or at least acceptable or perhaps inevitable. By portraying law's unequal harms as the "side effects" of systems and structures with unquestionable "main effects," the "unintended consequences" story helps affirm the resulting harm even as it seems to offer sympathy and technical assistance. In considering solutions to the financial market problems, the policy puzzle is not that struggling homeowners' interests are overwhelmingly complex or uncertain. Instead, the bigger problem is that overwhelmingly powerful interests and ideologies are actively resisting systemic changes that would make those interests count. The failure to criminally prosecute or otherwise severely penalize high-level financial industry fraud is not primarily the result of uncertainty about the harmful effects of that fraudulent behavior, but because the political and justice systems are skewed to protect the gains and unaccountability of wealthy executives despite the clear harms to hosts of others. The unequal effects of the prevailing policy response to the crisis are foreseeable and obvious, not accidental or surprising. It would not take advanced knowledge of economics to readily predict that modest-income homeowners would tend to be far worse off than bank executives by a policy approach that failed to provide substantial mortgage forgiveness and foreclosure protections for modest-income homeowners but instead provided massive subsidized credit and other protections for Wall Street. Many policy actions likely to alleviate the unequal harm of the crisis similarly are impeded not because consumer advocates, low-income homeowners, or racial justice advocates hesitate to risk major changes in existing systems, or are divided about the technical design of alternative programs or more effective mechanisms for enforcing laws against fraud and racial discrimination. Instead, the problem is that these voices pressing for effective change are often excluded, drowned out or distorted in Congress and in federal agencies such as the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, or in the media, in the mainstream economics profession, and to a large extent in legal scholarship about financial markets. More generally, those diverse voices from the bottom have been largely absent or marginalized in the dominant theoretical framework that constructs widespread and severe inequality as unforeseeable and largely inevitable, or even beneficial. Moreover, justice requires careful attention to both harmful intent and to complex harmful effects. But the concept of "unintended consequences" inverts justice by suggesting that the best way to care for those at the bottom is to not care to make law more attentive to the bottom. "Unintended consequences" arguments promote a simplistic moral message in the guise of sophisticated intellectual critique-the message that those who lack power should not seek it because the desire for more power is what hurts most. Further, like Ayn Rand's overt philosophy of selfishness, that message promotes the theme that those who have power to ignore their harmful effects on others need not-indeed should not-be induced by law to care about this harm, because this caring is what is harmful. One right-wing think tank has recently made this moral message more explicit with an economic values campaign suggesting that the intentional pursuit of economic equality is a problem of the immoral envy of those whose economic success proves they are more deserving.169 Legal scholars and advocates who intend to put intellectual rigor and justice ahead of service to financial elites should reject stories of "unintended consequences" and instead scrutinize the power and laws that have so effectively achieved the intention of making devastating losses to so many of us seem natural, inevitable, and beneficial
Unions cause protectionism – that slows growth and causes tariffs
Epstein 16 ~Richard A. Epstein Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow @ the Hoover Institution. "The Rise of American Protectionism." https://www.hoover.org/research/rise-american-protectionism~~
This point explains why the American labor movement has historically opposed free trade. The
AND
rate of return on investment further, which will necessarily compound the problem.
New trade conflicts cause global war and undermine cooperation on collective action problems
Dr. Michael F. Oppenheimer 21, Clinical Professor at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, Senior Consulting Fellow for Scenario Planning at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Former Executive Vice President at The Futures Group, Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Foreign Policy Roundtable at the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, and The American Council on Germany, "The Turbulent Future of International Relations", in The Future of Global Affairs: Managing Discontinuity, Disruption and Destruction, Ed. Ankersen and Sidhu, p. 23-30
Four structural forces will shape the future of International Relations: globalization (but without
AND
the South China Sea, Taiwan—where the kindling seems awfully dry.
====Capitalism is the only way to incentivize the innovation necessary to solve the environment====
Franz 4/25 (Caleb, podcast director for Outset magazine. "Markets Work: Capitalism and Innovation Heal the Earth", 4/25/17. http://outsetmagazine.com/2017/04/25/capitalism-and-innovation-heal-the-earth/**, 7/7/17)JM
When it comes to opposing factions, it seems as though no two factions could
AND
heal the planet is just one excellent example of how well markets work.
Kellner 4-11 (Peter, founder and managing partner of Richmond Global Ventures L.L.C. and chairman and C.E.O. of the Richmond Global Compass Fund L.P., 4-11-2017, "To fight climate change, we need to improve capitalism, not get rid of it," America Magazine, https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/04/11/fight-climate-change-we-need-improve-capitalism-not-get-rid-it) kb
Pope Francis correctly points out the evil fruits of capitalism, including inequality. However
AND
capitalism, and its rewards are abundant. Everyone should preach this gospel.
Chait 15 (Jonathan, an American liberal commentator and writer for New York magazine, previously a senior editor at The New Republic and an assistant editor of The American Prospect, 10-23-2015, "Is Naomi Klein Right That We Must Choose Between Capitalism and the Climate?," Daily Intelligencer, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/must-we-choose-between-capitalism-and-climate.html) kb
It is not the right but the center-left that provides the main target
AND
dangerous advice the left has come up with in a very long time.
Stromberg 4 - Joseph R. Stromberg, Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and has held the JoAnn B. Rothbard chair in History at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He received his BA and MA from Florida Atlantic University, and his further graduate work was completed at the University of Florida, 2004 ("Why Capitalism is Inevitable," Mises Institute, 7-09-2004, Available Online at https://mises.org/library/why-capitalism-inevitable, Accessed on 7-5-2017 JJ)
How striking to discover, then, how few writers and thinkers are willing to
AND
outcomes, and to be hopeful about the triumph of choice over coercion.
Capitalism is fundamentally sustainable- innovation, increasing equality, improved standard of living, democracy, and empirics prove
Forbes 09 Steve Forbes, editor in chief of Forbes Magazine, ("How Capitalism Will Save Us", https://www.forbes.com/2009/11/03/capitalism-greed-recession-forbes-opinions-markets.html, 11/3, accessed 7/7/17 EVH)
Because of the Rap, people are blind to the Reality–that far from
AND
only for the parties directly involved but eventually for the rest of society.