[M]any people who wish to relieve human suffering do not consider whether their actions are likely to produce the greatest amount of good possible. When they find a course of action that they think will make a great (enough) contribution to the relief of suffering and that can compel their personal allegiance and energies, they may act accordingly, without considering whether they might not do more good elsewhere. And such moral satisficing does not, from a common-sense moral standpoint, seem wrong; a person who has done a great deal to relieve suffering would not normally be thought to have acted wrongly because she could have done even greater service elsewhere.
(Michael Slote, "Satisficing Consequentialism," The Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume 58 [1984]: 139-63, at 156)
