Admittedly, no one has pre-theoretical judgments about the ranking of outcomes in the abstract. But these are evaluative rankings, and arguably such evaluative rankings concern what the agent ought (or what it is fitting for the agent) to desire/prefer (see Portmore 2011: 59–62 and 112–114). Hence, the earnest consequentializer holds that the judgment that one outcome outranks another is just the judgment that the agent ought (or that it is fitting for the agent) to prefer the one to the other.