[sunshinesnacks]

> They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

That’s a very broad statement. I expect there are many cases where that is not true.

[abfan1127]

"greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".

[sunshinesnacks]

Maybe. But the original context here is an article about removing lead from gasoline. Which I’m pretty sure that helped many people based on the “greater good”.

There’s no copper sulfate in canned green beans or borax in beef. Those seem all around good.

Let’s agree that impacts of regulations are nuanced, and not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic like, “regulations hurt poor people”.

[_DeadFred_]

When left to their own cigaret companies tell congress cigarettes are safe and non addictive. Left alone companies pay in scrip only usable at the company store.

The 'greater good' has arguably PREVENTED much more hurt of people than it has ever hurt. Meanwhile companies have PROVEN time and time again that they WILL hurt people when left to their own devices. In environmental policies. In pay policies. In employment policies. In EVERY aspect possible.

[Braxton1980]

For each instance did it help more than it hurt?

Not to simplify but if you have to make a decision shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?