Consequentialism Options

[*Steven*]

Ends justifies the means.

[Spirited Away]

no no. i mean what i said wasn't an original idea; i'm repeating an argument. i will edit this later with a response if one is called for.

I'm not claiming it as an original idea. I found a definition of my outlook and this seemed to fit it pretty decently. Should the end be known, however, is there any issue?

What if the detriment of one is an equal benefit shared amongst many? One person loses 5$ 100 people gain 5$. One person is negatively affected by a new policy, but 10 are helped. Minorities are given less preferential treatment, and the majority's paid more attention.

A person "losing" $5 through what means? Was it stolen or was it a voluntary loss? Also, if a person loses $5, only one other person can gain that exact $5, FYI.

What happens with coercion or force is that it doesn't usually stop with one person or one event. As it is, "policy" rarely affects just one person. By your reasoning, the opinions and rights of minorities should yield to the opinions and rights of the majority. The image your producing out of that logic is of the South embracing slavery and of America ignoring women rights, for example. To continue, a person or entity with the power to utilize any means to get the desired end won't stop with one event. They'll want to do more.