Does natural selection tend to maximise something? Does it produce individuals who act as if they maximised something? These questions have long occupied evolutionary theorists, and have proven especially tricky in the case of social evolution, which is known for leading to apparently suboptimal states. This paper investigates recent results about maximising analogies - especially regarding whether individuals should be considered as if they maximised their inclusive fitness - and compares the fruitfulness of global and local approaches. I assess Okasha & Martens's recent local approach to the individual-as-maximising-agent analogy and its robustness with respect to interactive situations. I then defend the relative merits of a comparable global approach, arguing that it is conceptually on a par and heuristically advantageous.