I feel certain someone has already discussed the following problem, but I'm frustrated that I don't remember who and where. Anyway:
Suppose there is some action whose consequences, it appears, are on balance slightly bad. (Perhaps a boy steals a candy bar from a store.) It seems possible for there to be an omniscient person who enjoys immoral things
for their own sake. It also seems possible that this person is a consequentialist. Suppose she reads about this theft in the neighborhood newspaper. She enjoys this immorality. It's also plausible that her enjoyment of immoral things is
good. But because one consequence of this theft is that she enjoys reading about it, the total consequences of his theft are now, on balance, good. But then she no longer believes that his action is immoral. So she doesn't enjoy it. So, his theft does not have on balance good consequences. So his action is slightly bad………..
This pattern can oscillate infinitely.
What's going on here? It appears as though there is some kind of conflict between 1) enjoying immorality for its own sake, 2) believing in consequentialism, 3) believing enjoyment is good, 4) being omniscient. (I'm not even sure that #4 is necessary to generate the oscillation, but it certainly helps.)