 The ideal utilitarian may not be satisfied with this outcome. Perhaps the more appropriate route is not to opt for revision to common-sense morality. For this may in the end give Ross a philosophical advantage, especially if there is hope he can find satisfactory replies to Pickard-Cambridge’s objections. Instead, perhaps the better strategy is to capture the importance of promise keeping to common-sense morality by holding that keeping promises is non-instrumentally good or at least that breaking a promise is non-instrumentally bad (Brennan 1989; Ewing 1957, 1959; Johnson 1953, 1959; Shaver 2011). The general strategy is to subsume all of Ross’s non-utilitarian duties in this way. This is a compelling response. To assess it, it is important to examine his theory of value.