Structural bias toward powerful actors may still produce net positive consequences for broader populations, making consequentialist legitimacy possible despite unequal distribution.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Consequentialist legitimacy(as used in ethics and political philosophy): The idea that something (like a government or system) can be considered justified or acceptable if it produces good overall results for people, even if it's unfair to some groups.
Net positive consequences(as used in consequentialist ethics): When the total benefits outweigh the total harms—meaning more good happens overall than bad, even if good and bad are unevenly distributed.
Structural bias(as the underlying problem with rational-choice models): Unfair treatment that is built into how a system works, rather than coming from one person's prejudice; it's hidden in the rules and assumptions of the system itself.
Unequal distribution(in ethics and economics): A situation where some people have more of something (like money or resources) than others.

Based on where you are in your exploration