 But although these moves are significant, they are insufficient to allow the consequentializer to accommodate other commonsense intuitions. For commonsense holds that breaking a promise is wrong even if breaking it would produce just as much good as keeping it (Ross 1930 [2002: 18]), and the overall goodness of breaking a promise must take into account whatever intrinsic badness there is in the act itself. For instance, commonsense holds that it would be wrong, other things being equal, for Abe to break his promise even to prevent Bert and Carl from breaking their promises. Yet, clearly, it must, other things being equal, be better for Abe to break his promise than for Bert and Carl to break theirs. For even if promise-breakings are intrinsically bad, two promise-breakings would have to be worse than just one, other things being equal.