From https://stream.org/atheist-richard-dawkins-cannibalism/

Consequentialism says that the consequences of a person’s actions should be the sole basis to judge whether those actions are right or wrong. There is nothing inherently right or wrong in any act, but only what flows from an act.

Absolutism, contrast, does not deny consequences, but insists acts can be good or bad in themselves.

It always turns out to be the common sense of the person advocating consequentialism. That makes their opinions and judgments the absolutes to which everybody else must bow. We’d better pray that they get their common sense judgments right. Otherwise, who knows who will turn up on the menu?

What is "good"? How does one determine that?

"... that [which] serves the principle of life, truth and peace from an eternal perspective" -- as I already showed you. An act is not good in and of itself but is good because of its consequence in view of eternity.

It always turns out to be the common sense of the person advocating consequentialism. That makes their opinions and judgments the absolutes to which everybody else must bow.

True,....sort of. The question now becomes "And just what are 'the principle of life, truth and peace from an eternal perspective' and who determines that?"

The Catholic Church used this argument in the Middle Ages to justify burning heretics and homosexuals (and others, typically those who disagreed with them) at the stake. "It's for your own good, because if we burn you now you will spend less time burning in hell." I'm sure that was a great consolation to the condemned. Certain people groups justify FGM on the same basis. Child sacrifices, often by burning, were also justified by this theory.

Secondly, this argument usually turns out to be the protectionist rhetoric of those in power, not concerned with YOUR good or the good of SOCIETY but rather keeping THEIR power, control, and economic structures in place for their own benefit.

I would rather suggest that "good" refers to that which promotes the happiness, contentment, well-being etc. of yourself and others, and reduces stress, anxiety, fear, etc. in same, IRRESPECTIVE of any "eternal" considerations. This causes "GOOD" to answer to the immediate concerns and context of the individuals involved, and keeps it "HONEST." One can no longer justify their evil actions by claiming "It's for your own good in the long run." (As with any argument, certain caveats apply.)

It's a "good car" because it keeps running and doesn't cause you worry.
It's a "good house" because you feel comfortable in it and it doesn't require constant maintenance and repair.
He/She is a "good friend" because you trust them and they don't cause you stress, etc.
It's a "good decision" because it moves you closer to your goals.
Dinner was "good" because it tasted pleasant, didn't make you sick, and prolonged your life.

Your references to "a good car, a good house, a good friend, a good decision ..." are not relevant. This is not about the condition of objects but a question of morality.

What determines the intrinsic goodness of an act is, again, dependent on an eternal perspective: does it "serve the principle of life, truth and peace" in the long run. It is not about WHO determines its goodness (what the Roman Catholics did is irrelevant) but rather whether at the end of eternity, so to speak, the act in and of itself preserved and/or resulted in life, truth and peace.

... the act itself, or more precisely the effect of the acts collectively, affects eternity.