 But, of course, act-consequentialism is not a theory about what it is right to prefer, but rather a theory about what it is right to do. Nevertheless, we can charitably interpret Foot as assuming that the Compelling Idea is  Most Reason to Desire.  This idea in conjunction with her claim that it can never be right to prefer a worse state of affairs to a better one entails the thought that it is always morally permissible to bring about the best outcome, and this is the thought that she sought to debunk by arguing that we have no grasp of the notion of the best outcome except as the outcome most favored by benevolence from among those actions permitted by justice. The problem, though, is that Foot is wrong about its never being right to prefer a worse state of affairs to a better one. For, as Jamie Dreier has pointed out,