One example is it seems to me that buying something locally made is better for the local area than buying something made far away. (for "locality" you may substitute "state" or "nation" or whatever region you want to divide things by).
For me this conjures bad memories of the anti-"Jap" "USA USA" crowd of the '80's that had "buy American" bumper stickers and such ; something in my moral fibers says you should buy the best quality cheapest product. But I don't think that's true.
Consider for the moment the case that there are two products, identical in price and quality. One is locally made, one is foreign made. I contend it is better for the local area (and usually better for you personally) to buy the locally made product. When you do that, the money goes to someone who lives nearby, who spends that money again, and that person spends it, again, etc. This makes the local area prosperous.
(in a purely selfish sense, whether or not making the local area prosperous is good for you or not depends on the details of your situation; if you are a merchant or an altruist, it is good for you; but if your business is international and you would prefer local property values to be low, it might be bad for you; we will assume for the moment that you want the local area to benefit).
So there is some value to buying local and keeping money and industry circulating locally.
So, even if the local product is somewhat more expensive, it still might be better overall if you bought that instead of the foreign product. You have to weigh the benefit of both; the region gains some utility from access to cheaper foreign products, but that is traded off against not circulating that money around the local economy. eg. there's some break even point (in terms of overall utility) ; maybe if the local product costs 20% more, that's the actual break even point.
Of course consumers should not have to make that decision themselves, they should just be able to buy the cheapest product. The correct way to fix that is with government - one of the valuable things that government can do is to make apparent price equal to actual price (eg. to make price proportional to utility, or to move long term costs forward, etc.), or to use laws to bias pricing so that logical purchasing decisions lead to the greatest overall utility (eg. putting penalties on products that help you but hurt others).
The obvious way to make the prices match utility here is either with tarrifs on imports, or subsidies for local production. This is called "protectionism" to attack it, but it seems to me it's just a way of getting the benefit of circulating those dollars locally.
I'm a little disturbed by my conclusion because it's awfully close to the anti-globalization crackpots who claim that modern government financial policy benefits "wall street not main street" (and other slogans).
Granted, in reality, it's too late to go back to pre-1990's protectionism. The cat is out of the bag. And of course in reality protectionism degrades into political gifts for corrupt corporations. But we can ignore those issues for the theoretical discussion.
Also, if you are an extremely altruistic chap you might question the whole goal of maximizing the benefit to your locality (nation/state/fiefdom/whatever). You might say the goal of policies should be to maximize the good for the world. But for the moment let's ignore that and assume that the government of a nation should act to maximize benefit for that nation.