Can the interests of the minority be sacrificed for the interests of the majority?

I think there is nothing wrong with this sentence on the surface: "Although it is regrettable to sacrifice the interests of a few people, the result is that most people benefit. Isn't this the best answer that can be thought of? " However, when this choice method is put into practice, you will get an answer that is completely inconsistent with ethics in some things.

A cracked hole

For example, in order to save ten people who are about to starve to death, kill an irrelevant passerby to cook, right? As a result, more people survived than died, so we should act according to the above values, but obviously this is not in line with our common sense. Similar to the above situation-although the result is to maximize the overall interests, it is really unacceptable-which makes the method of "choosing the path to maximize the interests of the most people" unable to perfectly explain all the situations, that is, there are loopholes in this theory, which shows that this theory is probably incorrect.

extreme

This statement seems to be no problem, but it is actually extreme. For example, property rights are the basic rights of human beings, so is it wrong to tax the rich more to buy food for the poor? Should it be a robber? But according to this theory, although it is good to save many poor people, it does infringe on the property rights of the rich by taxing them more.

question

Of course, many people continue to improve the second theory so that it can face more problems and stand scrutiny. But I believe that there are countless cases in this world that will make the second theory seem to be about to collapse.

abstract

I think philosophy can help us to act in a self-consistent way, but it is impossible to find a unified code of conduct that can solve all the problems in the world. I'm afraid the best answer to this question is to analyze specific problems on the basis of facts.