 Although  Most Reason to Desire  is quite compelling, it is not unique to act-consequentialism. For it turns out that consequentializing is a double-edged sword in that it can just as easily be employed to render non-consequentialism compatible with Most Reason to Desire as it can be used to render act-consequentialism compatible with commonsense deontic verdicts (Sachs 2010). For in showing that there is a ranking of outcomes that renders act-consequentialism compatible with some non-consequentialist theory’s deontic verdicts, the consequentializer also shows that there is a ranking of outcomes (the very same one) that renders this non-consequentialist theory compatible with Most Reason to Desire. As Benjamin Sachs points out,