<p>Agent-relative consequentialism uses the theoretical framework of consequentialism to capture the constraints favored by deontologists. Christopher Howard has recently argued that agent-relative consequentialism is implausible because it can only capture such constraints at the expense of getting other normative facts incorrect. In this reply, I argue that Howard’s objection to agent-relative consequentialism fails because it rests on faulty intuitions that arise from a misunderstanding of basic structural features of agent-relative consequentialism.</p>