One of the chief implausibilities of traditional (utilitarian) act-consequentialism has been its inability to accommodate moral supererogation. But a satisficing theory that allows less than the best to be morally permissible can treat it as supererogatory (and especially praiseworthy) for an agent to do more good than would be sufficient to insure [sic] the rightness of his actions. Thus, if the person with special interest in India sacrifices that interest in order to go somewhere else where he can do even more good, then he does better than (some plausible version of) satisficing act-consequentialism requires and acts supererogatorily. But optimizing act-consequentialism will presumably not treat such action as supererogatory because of its (from a common-sense standpoint) inordinately strict requirements of benevolence.
(Michael Slote, "Satisficing Consequentialism," The Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume 58 [1984]: 139-63, at 157)
