It Is Impossible to Maximize Good Consequences.

In my last post I argued that utility monsters, genocide of the less happy, and barely happy multitudes raise problems for the maximization clause of the fundamental definitions of consequentialism. Looking again to those definitions, as standardly propounded, I am going to argue that it is impossible to maximize good consequences – even in the unlikely event that a coherent account can be given of the choice alternatives and their consequences.

The Consequences for Consequentialism of Utility Monsters and Barely Happy Multitudes

The fundamental definition of maximizing consequentialism is that the objectively right action is the action, among available alternatives, that maximizes net good consequences. Do barely happy multitudes and utility monsters mean that consequentialism so understood cannot provide the fundamental guiding principle of morality?