The 'demandingness objection' challenges utilitarian ethics: if we're required to maximize overall good, shouldn't we give away most of our income to charity and sacrifice personal projects for the greater good? Some utilitarians accept this implication as genuinely following from their principles. Others propose 'satisficing'—doing enough good rather than maximizing—though critics argue this abandons utilitarianism's theoretical elegance for pragmatic accommodation.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
utilitarians universally reject any demanding moral requirements
ethical theories may face tensions between consistency and livability
satisficing utilitarianism is not a form of utilitarianism at all
personal projects are always more important than charity
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Consistent application leads to demanding requirements; accommodating livability sacrifices elegance.
- Context clues: Full application is very demanding; satisficing accommodates but "abandons theoretical elegance."
- Meaning: There's a tension between following principles consistently and living a practicable life.
- Verify: The split between accepting vs. modifying demandingness shows this tension.
💡 Strategy: When accommodating practicality requires theoretical sacrifice, infer a consistency-livability tension.
Choice A is incorrect because some utilitarians "accept this implication." Choice C is incorrect because satisficing is proposed as a version of utilitarianism. Choice D is incorrect because the objection is about balance, not that projects always win.