Legal Theory Blog has a bunch of links on the demandingness objection to utilitarianism
There is some truth in that has a post on the Problem of Evil, in which he recounts an argument against it that a professor of his recounted that he thought was quite brilliant, but that left him uneasy (probably because the argument is really pretty bad). The argument (the prof couldn't remember who originated it) is that a perfect world is impossible, because you can always imagine a more perfect one, so asking why God can't create it is asking why God can't do a logical impossibility (along the lines of creating a stone so heavy he can't lift it).
The reason that this is rubbish as an answer to the Problem of Evil is that it changes the subject. The question of why isn't this a world without evil isn't the same as the question of why isn't this world perfect. For example:
When it was first built, the John Hancock building in Boston had a problem: due to the height and shape of the building, wind and vibration caused the huge 500-pound window-panes to pop out and plummet to the ground, where they would shatter, scattering shards of glass everywhere. Eventually so many windows has been covered with plywood that locals referred to it as "the world's tallest plywood skyscraper." After some years, and seven million dollars of replacement for the original glass and lead solder, the window problem was solved. Another three million was spent on mass dampers when it was discovered that the building was in danger of twisting itself apart, since its sway period was dangerously close to its tortion period, which made it bend in the middle instead of rock back and forth in the wind. Then came the re-inforcement of the base to keep it from being knocked over by the wind...
Imagine trying to use the prof's theodicy against someone wondering how come the Hancock was such a mess if it was designed by such a hot-shot architect (in ths case Henry Cobb of I.M. Pei & Assoc.)
Complainer: Why didn't the architects and engineers of the Hancock do a better job?
Apologist: No matter how good a building is, you can imagine a better one. So there's no such thing as a perfect building. What you're asking for is a logical impossibility.
C: No I'm not, I'm asking for a building that doesn't send 500 pound slabs of glass hurtling towards the pavement like bombs!
A: If it wasn't that, it would be something else; buildings necessarily fall short of perfection.
C: It doesn't have to be perfect, but it shouldn't be a menace! A building that doesn't fold up or keel over in the wind isn't a logical impossibility.
I.e., one might say that if there wasn't a Problem of Evil, or a Problem of Pain, then it would be something else (the Problem of Insufficient Parking, or something), but that doesn't even begin to show that the Problem of Evil need not be answered on its own merits, any more than the Problem of Falling Windows doesn't need to be answered because of the Impossibility of a Perfect Building.