Act-consequentialist counterpart theories are explanatorily inadequate because they cannot provide a plausible rationale for certain deontic verdicts.

More recently, however, Stephen Emet (2010) and Christopher Howard (2021) have argued that act-consequentialist counterpart theories are explanatorily inadequate for a different reason. They argue that, in taking the Compelling Idea to be something such as Reasons for Preferring Ground Deontic Statuses, the earnest consequentializer is forced to give up a plausible rationale for certain deontic verdicts. Take, for instance, the deontic verdict that it would be wrong for you to kill even in a s