 The inseparable goods strategy appeals to certain benefits one can gain or preserve only by acting morally, that the Foole apparently fails to consider. Plato’s account of the benefits of justice in the Gorgias and Republic is one example of this approach. Plato maintains that if one commits an injustice, then one’s soul will consequently be corrupted, and he further maintains that to have a corrupt soul is the worst of all possible misfortunes (Gorgias 478c3–478e5, Republic 353d3–354a7). Alternatively, one might follow Aquinas in arguing that an injustice like stealing is a mortal sin which will bring about terrible consequences in the afterlife (Aquinas 1271: II.II Q. 66 A. 6). Or Sidgwick, who emphasizes the internal sanctions of duty one is likely to suffer on account of their immoral conduct (Sidgwick 1874 [2011: 164]). Viewed through the lens of game theory, the inseparable goods approach recommends that those who doubt the prudential rationality of acting morally should reevaluate their preferences in light of the totality of goods at stake. For example,  Figure 4  below illustrates how the scenario depicted in  Figure 3  would change if Laura becomes persuaded that she would suffer a cost \(\gamma &gt; 1\) as a result of breaking her covenant with Claudia, perhaps owing to the guilt she might feel for committing an injustice.