I’d argue minimizing suffering is basis for all ethics, just that they are achieving it in different ways.

Deontological ethics in a vacuum cause more suffering than utilitarianism. Yet (most) deontological philosophies seek to achieve as much good as possible - and therefore minimizing harm. Kant’s categorical imperative is - as a layman - just a formalization of: “Do what is good for you AND others. Don’t do what is good for you but bad for others.”

And I believe if you ask an ethics board at a why something was not permitted, you will always get the result: “Causes too much harm”. This happens despite them being allowed to evaluate based on many different philosophies.

I know very little ethics systems that don’t inevitable lead to a society with less suffering if strictly followed by most. Although that might just be because society as is is objectively unethical.