That's kind of a loaded statement that seems acceptable when taken at face value (and applied to the topic you are likely alluding to), but in reality, cannot b

That's kind of a loaded statement that seems acceptable when taken at face value (and applied to the topic you are likely alluding to), but in reality, cannot be used as a maxim for every circumstance. If what is considered ethical is what does the most good for the greatest number of people, then everything gets much more complicated. For example, what if you are an elected official who is elected by constituents who are in favor of something you are morally opposed to? Although doing what is morally right (to you as an individual) is one approach and advocated by philosophers such as Kant, it's not the only logical, ethical outcome. In such a case doing what is morally right as an individual could be considered selfish as it hurts more people than it helps (obviously depends on the issue). A utilitarian approach, where one factors in what is the "greatest good" for the greatest number of people could be an equally valid solution. That "greater good" could be in conflict with the politician's morals as well (as the politician could have been elected by the constituents for certain platforms, but not others). Such decisions could also result in personal loss (as you mentioned) for the subject in question, but are the "right" thing to do when considering more than just an individual. Nothing is simple about ethics, otherwise we would have solved all of our problems a long time ago with a single, valid approach.