Whatever definition or measurement of “the good” one uses (utilitarian or not) I would say yes, one could easily contrive the presentation of two or more choices whose difference in “good” was smaller than one’s capacity to resolve such differences.
The paradox arises from the conception of a “perfect reason” which is able to resolve such tiny differences in the good and act appropriately. The problem thus effectively becomes one of applied calculus as in Zeno’s arrow.
For all practical purposes, “the good” is impossible to measure to infinite accurately since any choice’s future consequences are unknown, and in any case the kilogram of thinking offal in our skulls is nowhere near so delicate a scalpel in its capacity to assess such measurements, as The VAA points out.
The solution to Buridan’s ass (snicker) and similar paradoxes is IMHO that the brain is (or at the very least can be forced to be) essentially random, ie. **the brain is the coin.**The experiments discussed in the other thread Mange mentions further support such.