It is often considered an important advantage of deontological theories that they don't share the counterintuitive verdict of consequentialism that we ought to violate duties or rights when this leads to overall less instances of such duty or rights violations. However, deontological theories struggle explaining why we ought to prevent duty violations when this is possible by morally innocuous means. Since deontology recognizes non-consequentialist duties, the importance of preventing their violation cannot always be explained in terms of their bad consequences. But at the same time, it seems that permitting that these non-consequentialist duties are violated does not violate these duties themselves. This paper argues that the only viable option for deontologists that allows them to explain why one ought to prevent immoral actions is to reinterpret deontological duties in terms of defeaters that diminish the strength of consequentialist reasons rather than proving additional reasons themselves.