Surely a utilitarian, some utilitarian, could be happy with this principle. This seems obvious, and just this is denied by Castafieda in [1], wherein forty-eight utilitarian principles are classified and held to be unacceptable. The principle displayed-Castanfeda would label it naive-subsumes several of his forty-eight, distinguished' one from another by assumptions concerning alternatives and the values of disjunctive actions. Two particularly natural assumptions determine, under Castanfeda's coding, R(u,b,S,g)principles, where 'R', 'S', and 'g' stand for 'right, 'sufficient, and 'greater-than', and 'u' and 'b' stand for the assumptions (to be explained below) concerning alternatives and values. Castanfeda's claim, the thesis to which this note is addressed, is that even given these to-be-explained reasonable assumptions, R(u,b,S,g)-principles are without exception untenable, and untenable especially for utilitarians. I argue first that he does not succeed in establishing this thesis. Next that the thesis is nevertheless correct is shown. Last, refinements and changes are adumbrated which promise to yield tenable 'cousi' to R(ub,S,g)-principles.