 Earnest consequentializers retort that it’s actually non-consequentialists who invert the true order of explanation. They argue that the deontic statuses of actions are grounded in reasons for performing them and that it’s more plausible to think that reasons for actions are grounded in reasons for preferring their outcomes than vice versa (see, e.g., Portmore 2011: chap. 3, especially 78–82).