"Utilitarianism is the moral theory that ascribes moral value according to the moral value of a calculated outcome. If action A saves 100 lives, it is better than action B, which saves 99 lives--regardless of the means of achieving action A. The ends of an action are favoured."
Would I be correct in thinking that to properly compare A and B in utilitarianism, you are going to have to consider ALL the ends of actions A and action B?
For example, suppose action A is saving 100 lives by jailing a million people. Action B is saving 99 lives by jailing 1 person. In comparing the outcome of the two events, you can't just consider the lives saved and ignore the people jailed. The number jailed is as much an "end" as the number saved.