 But although this works so long as we hold that the Compelling Idea is something like  Most Reason to Desire,  it doesn’t work if we think that the Compelling Idea includes a claim about what, on act-consequentialism, grounds the deontic statuses of actions. Consider that Sachs’s objection rests on the assumption that the best version of non-consequentialism is compatible with the Compelling Idea if the best version of act-consequentialism is compatible with the Compelling Idea. And, as even he admits, this assumption holds only if the Compelling Idea doesn’t include a claim about what, on act-consequentialism, grounds the deontic statuses of actions (Sachs 2010: 266–9). So, if the earnest consequentializer wants to avoid Sachs’s objection, they need only to adopt something like the following proposal.