FW:

Utilitarianism allows tyranny and the absolute oppression of the minority, yet identifies
value in a democratic society that increases the welfare of a population; in order to achieve
this society, political morality such as deontology must precede consequentialist
evaluations.

H. L. A. Hart in 79 (former principal of Oxford University, Tulane Law Review, “The Shell Foundation Lectures,
1978-1979: Utilitarianism and Natural Rights”, April, 53 Tul. L. Rev. 663, l/n)

The first fundamental criticism of this central maximising principle is again to be found implicit in John Stuart Mill's work. It is implicit in his account of Justice already mentioned,
but even more importantly in his influential reflections on Liberty, in the essay of that name. Bentham, it will be recalled, in making his own slow transition from a Tory supporter of
the unreformed British Constitution to radical democrat, though that Utilitarianism provided entirely adequate reasons for preferring democracy with manhood suffrage to any other
form of government, because only a government dependent on popular election could have sufficient incentive to work for the general interest rather than the sinister interest of a
governing few. So his critique of constitutional or political structures was rather like that of a business efficiency expert on a grand scale examining the structure of a firm, and

Mill valued
political theorists of our own day have produced some highly sophisticated versions of this type of quasieconomic approach to political theory. But

democracy for quite other reasons: not merely as the protection of the majority against
exploitation by the few and against the inefficiency of governments, but as affording the
opportunity to all to develop their distinctive human capacities for thought, choice
and self-direction by partaking in political decisions, even in the minimal form of voting
at intermittent elections. But Mill also thought that the tyranny of the majority over a
minority was as great a danger as the tyranny of a minority government or despotism
against which Bentham thought democracy the best protection. So a political morality
which like
Utilitarianism places political power in the hands of the majority is not enough to
secure a good, liberal society. It matters very much what the majority do with the
power which is put in their hands; so there is need for constraints in the form of
distinct principles of political morality whether or not they are translated into law in
the form of a Bill of Rights. "The limitations of the power of government over individuals," said Mill, "loses none of its importance when the [*675]
holders of power are regularly accountable to the community--that is to the strongest party therein."

Economic growth inevitably causes extinction through environmental destruction – growth is

unsustainable and the collapse is inevitable
Pradanos 15
(Luis, Ph.D., Professor at Miami University, specialist in ecocritical theories and
environmental humanities, 4.7.15, The Conversation, “An economy focused solely on
growth is environmentally and socially unsustainable,” http://theconversation.com/an-
economy-focused-solely-on-growth-is-environmentally-and-socially-unsustainable-39761,
Accessed: 7.30.16)VW
Most world leaders seem to believe that economic growth is a panacea for many of
society’s problems. Yet there are many links between our society’s addiction to economic
growth, the disturbing ecological crisis, the rapid rise of social inequality and the decline in
the quality of democracy. These issues tend to be explored as disconnected topics and often
misinterpreted or manipulated to match given ideological preconceptions and prejudices.
The fact is that they are deeply interconnected processes. A large body of data and research
has emerged in the last decade to illuminate such connections. Limited biosphere Studies in
social sciences consistently show that, in rich countries, greater economic growth on its
own does very little or nothing at all to enhance social well-being. On the contrary,
reducing income inequality is an effective way to resolve social problems such as violence,
criminality, imprisonment rates, obesity and mental illness, as well as to improve
children’s educational performance, population life expectancy, and social levels of trust
and mobility. Comparative studies have found that societies that are more equal do much
better in all the aforementioned areas than more unequal ones, independent of their gross
domestic product (GDP). Economist Thomas Piketty, in his recent book Capital in the
Twenty-First Century, has assembled extensive data that shows how unchecked capitalism
historically tends to increase inequality and undermine democratic practices. The focus of a
successful social policy, therefore, should be to reduce inequality, not to grow the GDP for
its own sake.
Concurrently, recent developments in earth system science are telling us that our frenetic
economic activity has already transgressed several ecological planetary boundaries. One
could argue that the degradation of our environmental systems will jeopardize
socioeconomic stability and worldwide well-being. Some scientists suggest that we are in a
new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, in which human activity is transforming the earth
system in ways that may compromise human civilization as we know it. Many reports
insist that, if current trends continue, humanity will soon face dire and dramatic
consequences. New framing If we consider all these findings as a whole, a consistent
picture emerges: constant economic growth is a biophysical impossibility in a limited
biosphere, and the faster the global economy grows, the faster the living systems of the
planet collapse. In addition, this growth increases inequality and undermines democracy,
multiplying the number of social problems that erode human communities. In a nutshell,
we have created a dysfunctional economic system that, when it works according to its self-
imposed mandate of growing the pace of production and consumption, destroys the
ecological systems upon which it depends. And when it does not grow, it becomes socially
unsustainable. In a game with these rules, there is no way to win!