One of the biggest problems of consequentialism is that it lies in opposition with the typically agreed upon Kantian principle that a person should never be the means to an end. Consequentialism is often summarized by the common phrase that the ends justify the means. In consequentialism a person must perform whatever action brings about the best possible consequences to the largest amount of people. This calls for a person to deny any option that does not provide the best possible consequences, including personal projects. The denial of agent-centered prerogatives, coupled with using people as a means to an end leads to those people adhering to the principles a feeling of alienation. If the vast majority of people wish to have agent centered, self focused, projects, then surely that is human nature, and to deny that which is natural, must naturally be wrong. Humans are social creatures, which thrive best when part of a community that relies and builds upon one another, so certainly an ethical system which supports a generally humanitarian agenda, then human nature and the comprehensive desire, to progress and support the vast majority, of consequentialism can both be satiated. It must of course, be noted that having humanitarian and altruistic agenda for the whole, does not necessarily mean focusing ones own ambitions to benefit the whole. Much like with capitalism, compared to socialism, being able to advance ones self and having incentives to perform or act better leads to innovation and growth, which in turn can lead to the advancements of society and humanity as a whole. Much like in evolution, where random mutations may help, or hurt, an individual, they can, when helpful to an individual, advance the species as a whole, this type of process can be similarly modeled by the projects of self interest that a given person may partake in leading to the growth, either ethically or pragmatically, of the universe and those in it.
