Sleinis' argument against utilitarianism is based on a general feature of a situation considered by J.J.C. Smart. 2 In discussing an "extreme" case in which a utilitarian finds himself in a community committed to a magical taboo ethics, Smart observes that the tendency of the taboo ethics may be more beneficial than the moral anarchy into which the community might fall if its reverence for the taboos were weakened. Smart notes that while this ethic might be markedly inferior to a utilitarian ethic, a utilitarian might well decide on utilitarian grounds to strengthen rather than weaken the taboo system since the adoption of a utilitarian ethic might be difficult or impossible. Sleinis takes the generalization of Smart's point to be that a utilitarian may, on utilitarian grounds, be enjoined to promote in others a nonutilitarian moral system. On this generalization Sleinis bases essentially three types of example which he regards as "fatal" to utilitarianism, and advances a further generalization which he takes to undermine the possibility that consequentialism could be a conceptual truth. His examples are briefly these. He first considers a case in which a utilitarian is located in a community of non-utilitarians who are sufficiently upset at his being a utilitarian that utility would be maximized by his abandoning his utilitarian principles. Assuming that the utilitarian cannot leave the community without causing enormous misery, it seems that utilitarianism requires that he give up his moral beliefs by an act of will or by "put[ting] himself in the hands of a good brainwasher. ''3 Sleinis' second case is very similar. He inquires whether the real world is happier for containing utilitarians. Alleging that no one knows the answer to this