Only outcomes matter? The ends do not always justify the means. That's morality 101.
That's what I've been told numerous times throughout my life and every time I just kept thinking
IT'S NOT TRUE! IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE! IT MAKES ON SENSE! YOU AREN'T EVEN THINKING! ARGH!You can make every consequent morality that is oriented on principles fall apart with the right scenarios, with no exception. Because principled moral just frankly makes zero sense. It's an incredibly controversial thing to say but not more than saying that the earth circles around the sun a few hundred years ago.
So let's say Peter earns 30 000 $ each month and lives fairly comfortable with that. Now imagine you had a button that you can press, and every time you do he loses 1$ of his next salary and a poor family in Africa gets it instead. Is it right or wrong to press that button?
Now I give you a second button. Whenever you press that one, you take 1$ away from a poor family in Africa and add it to Peter's salary. I'm sure we can agree that you shouldn't even touch this button. But those two buttons do the exact opposite. So both an option and the reverse of that option are wrong?
[Note that I'm using small amounts to have largely linear effects]
If the answer is yes I think that should make you rethink things.
Onward. In the next scenario, you don't have buttons anymore. Instead you have a switch, with one side labeled "Africa" and the other side labeled "Peter". In two hours, the state of the switch will trigger an effect. If it is on Peter, he will receive his full salary. If it is on "Africa", our America family will receive 1$ of his salary. The default setting of the switch is "Africa". Is it correct to switch it back to "Peter" to take money away from the African family to Peter to avoid having him lose money he earned? If the answer is "no" then what happened to your principle? And if the answer is "yes", then that should make you think, because flipping this switch has the same effect as pressing the second button, which we already agreed is evil.
And lastly, imagine you have a second switch with sides labeled as "Transfer" and "No transfer", which determines not wether 1$ but 500 000 $ picked evenly from 5000 wealthy but fair working people's people's salaries are being transferred to a couple of families in Africa. It's a safe bet that at least a couple of people will live if "Transfer" is chosen but not if "No transfer" is chosen.
Do you switch it if the default setting is "Transfer?" Do you switch it if the default setting is "No transfer?"
With a principled moral, you have to bend over backwards and around on a handstand to come up with satisfying solutions (if I'm wrong about that, correct me, give me your answers).
If you value outcomes, it's the simplest thing in the world. You go with redistribution every time. Done.