 Now, one may object that if someone concedes that the rationale for the impermissibility of your killing the one to prevent the five from being killed by the mafia ultimately lies with your would-be victim and their value as an end-in-themself, then they thereby commit themself to Kantianism as opposed to act-consequentialism. But earnest consequentializers argue that this is a mistake. They believe that the difference between Kantianism and act-consequentialism is that whereas the former holds that the ultimate right-making feature of an act is that it shows the proper respect for humanity, the latter holds that the ultimate right-making feature of an act is instead that its outcome is not outranked by that of any available alternative. Thus, the act-consequentialist can hold that what determines whether one outcome is outranked by another is anything other than the deontic statuses of the acts that produce them. So, they can even hold that what determines whether the one outranks the other is whether the agent treats someone who is an end-in-themself as a mere means in the one but not the other.