 Of course, Ross might drop the requirement that the fulfilment of a promise must produce pleasure for the promisee and suggest instead only the fulfilment of a promise be ‘bonific’ for someone (e.g., C) (RG 36; Ross 1928–29: 267–68). This seems to put him at odds with the plain man in other cases, however. Consider a deathbed promise with a different content, that A be buried with C, his wife. Suppose this promise is not bonific. Ross will have to say there is no reason to fulfil it (though perhaps he could claim that fulfilling the promise is bonific since it satisfies A’s desire (Skelton 2013a)). Hence, he may have to advocate revision to common-sense morality. Perhaps he can argue his revision is more conservative than the revisions required by ideal utilitarianism. But this is a very thin difference; it may not be enough to give Ross the edge. Given these worries and the fact that ideal utilitarianism seems quite close to the plain man or common-sense morality in many of the other important cases, its entailing it is right to break the promise in the initial case above can hardly be considered a death blow.