 Other puzzles concern the formulation and defense of diachronic requirements of rationality for intention: the idea that intentions should persist over time, resisting reconsideration, especially in light of temptations they were designed to forestall. (On the nature of such requirements, see Holton 2009; Broome 2013: Ch. 10; Paul 2014b; Bratman 2018; Tenenbaum 2020; Brunero forthcoming.) The idea that intentions resist reconsideration creates potential moral risks: what if they make us insensitive or indifferent to changing moral reasons? (See Bok 1996; Paul 2017.) What do ethical concerns of this kind mean for the role of intention in diachronic autonomy or self-governance?