I'd say that an argument to the effect of "I should accept this evil, because it will enable me to do more good" is notoriously dangerous. This IS the argument of pretty much any large-scale horror we as humans have unleashed upon each-other throughout history, and is probably the reasoning behind a very significant portion of the smaller ones as well.

We might sometimes be forced to choose the lesser evil or think in an utilitarian way, simply because reality often gives us the choice between two things that suck.

But to me that is very different from choosing to do so when it isn't necessary. I personally think good comes from embracing decency, not from running moral equations Excel-style.

The argument is fine if it is indeed true that much more good than harm will be achieved. It is only dangerous in the hands of people who are apt to make it wrongly. People who are dumb or willing to make it in non clearcut situations or people who are merely pretending that reducing harm is their goal when it is really something else. But to not use that argument when it is clearcut, is simply a way for people to not feel bad about their unwillingess to go out of their way to do more good.

What if the 35 million would cost him say 100 million in future earnings?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_gv6fRejLM

Very well said!

When you said that chezlaw would not be immoral for refusing to stop posting for 50k, would that remain true if the post was giving his reasons for not believing Jesus was the son of God?

I generally avoid answering contrary-to-fact hypotheticals. Especially when they make literally no sense whatsoever.

Here's a good contrary-to-fact hypothetical:

If David Sklansky wasn't a jackass, would he still be able to write great poker books?*

*Theory of Poker is still da nutz!