 We’ve already seen what is perhaps the original, and most common, motivation for consequentializing: to avoid utilitarianism’s counterintuitive deontic verdicts while retaining what’s most intuitively compelling about it—its act-consequentialism (S. A. Schroeder 2017: 1477). Following Sergio Tenenbaum (2014), I’ll call those with this motive for consequentializing earnest consequentializers. Earnest consequentializers (e.g., Sen 1983 and Portmore 2011) give what’s known as the intuitive argument for consequentializing (S. A. Schroeder 2017: 1477):