&quot;The Copenhagen theory of ethics&quot; isn&#x27;t a thing. It is an attempt of the author to ridicule a nuanced and rich ethics which he (I can only assume it&#x27;s a he, but it seems like a safe bet) doesn&#x27;t understand and doesn&#x27;t seem to want to understand. Instead of asking why some people react in a way he doesn&#x27;t understand, he assumes they&#x27;re idiots and makes fun of them. Any system which is complex enough because it&#x27;s a result of careful study of a complex system such as our society, can seem absurd to someone who doesn&#x27;t wish to understand it, and because they can&#x27;t see the complexity -- for lack of study -- think that their simple (simplistic) approach is superior.<p>Obviously improving things even a little is better than not improving them at all. People just disagree whether what the author sees as a clear improvement is in fact so -- that&#x27;s why you and the GP disagree.<p>Also, a nuanced ethical view may support a an action that improves things while at the same time note (and accept as the lesser evil) an ethical problem with it. No one says that any desired (or &quot;good&quot;) action must be ethically perfect. Even moralists know how to compromise sometimes, even though they do so with protest. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me.<p>&gt; Since I&#x27;m more utilitarian and I don&#x27;t take Copenhagen as my moral axiom<p>You and the article&#x27;s author seem to subscribe to what ethicists call the &quot;non-worseness claim&quot;. I found a discussion of this claim here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;exploitation&#x2F;#4" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;exploitation&#x2F;#4</a>