 Peter Railton has attempted to find a place for loyalties within a broadly consequentialist framework that avoids both alienation and the problems confronting Hare’s two-tiered system. According to Railton, there are good consequentialist reasons for acting on particularistic preferences, consequentialist reasons that do not undercut but honor the particularism of those preferences. Railton’s defense trades on a distinction between subjective and objective consequentialism, the objective consequentialist (whom he supports) being committed to the course of action available to an agent that would maximize the good (Railton, 1984, 152). That, he believes, does not require that the agent consciously decide to maximize the good—indeed, it may require that the agent not make such calculations. Overall, then, a loyalty to friends and family, and commitment to ground projects may maximize good, even though, were one to make a subjective calculation, it would undermine the loyalty or commitment. Although there is some debate about the success of this strategy (Wilcox, 1987; Conee, 2001), it goes some way to countering the common perception that universalistic (or impersonal) theories can find no place for particularist obligations.