Making judgments about theories or actions only by comparing the outcomes is called Consequentialism [1]. I'm not saying it is always wrong, but it is just one

Making judgments about theories or actions only by comparing the outcomes is called Consequentialism [1]. I'm not saying it is always wrong, but it is just one of a range of frameworks that can be applied. Applying consequentialism to ethical judgments about people is often problematic. There are various criticisms listed in [1], but they are kind of theoretical. Let me give a practical example instead. If we allow (as you say) that "protect and help the poor to make us all better off" is the best way to form a judgement about this issue because it turns out that it actually does make us all better off, then what do you do if it emerges that protecting some sub-group of the poor (say, poor people in South America) actually makes us worse off? Are they out of luck, or do you revise your judgement even though, in your terms, it was correct? Basically, this limited world-view can instrumentalise people and is vulnerable to dangerous unforeseen consequences that lead to real human suffering. And I'm done. Unit tests to write. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism