Any position that requires that group A not be equal before the law compared to group B, who get the full benefit of the law, means that group A probably has rational grounds to fight against the position. Thus that position has built into it a group that should oppose it, and if one applied the golden rule, if the second group B were in their shoes, they would also oppose it.
Given how hard it is to make any very large and operationally functioning system, it is a lot to ask for it to also withstand the fact that for an entire group of people, it must be stopped. Thus with racism, sexism, nativism, etc, a lot of energy must be expended defending ideology and policy.
This is one major strength of Utilitarian ethics: The system you designed should have as little built-in rational opposition as possible. The converse of "The greatest good for the most possible" is "There will be the minimum possible number of people with an automatic morally-aligned drive to stop you."
Well, no - that's my main comment on your post. Any given Utilitarian priority (the aggregation of individual utility that you optimize) is NOT win-win. It's win-on-average, which is still a loss for some.
1Edward Pascal
Do you believe in the existence of win-win? If so, why wouldn't they tend to behave as I am suggesting? Also if you believe win-wins exist and think they do not behave this way, then how do you understand a win-win?
I only think the very simplest of examples are fully win-win. Almost all of the real world consists of so many dimensions and players that it's more win-kinda-win-win-too-much-feels-like-losing-but-maybe-is-technically-a-win-lose-big-win-slightly-etc-for-thousands-of-terms-in-the-equation.
Also, a whole lot matters whether it's a win or a loss, what you're comparing it to. Many things are a slight win compared to the worse outcomes (for the person in question) and a loss compared to perfect, but unlikely, outcomes.