<p>The cluelessness argument implies that consequentialists are unable to know the moral status of any of their actions. Even trivial actions could be identity-affecting and are thus vulnerable to massive causal ramification. For such actions, we cannot – according to the proponent of the argument – even estimate the value of consequences; we are clueless. In this paper, I discuss two under-explored responses. First, it is open for consequentialists to simply accept widespread ignorance, and contend that this does not detract from the truth of the theory. Second, the argument does not affect “closed scenarios”: cases described in such a way to make massive causal ramification impossible. If such cases are possible, then they provide instances where consequentialists can make moral evaluations. While I do not think many will be satisfied with these responses, our dissatisfaction may be informative about what we demand from a moral theory.</p>