 Ruth Chang advances a hybrid view on rational choice to meet the challenge of cyclical choice. She distinguishes “given reasons” from “will-based” reasons. Roughly put, given reasons could here be understood as those that are grounded in normative facts while will-based reasons are “reasons in virtue of some act of the will; they are a matter of our creation. They are voluntarist in their normative source. In short, we create will-based reasons and receive given ones.” (Chang 2013, 177). Will-based reasons come into play when the given reasons no longer can guide our actions. When two alternatives are on a par, given reasons fail to guide us and at this stage, will-based reasons can provide guidance and guarantee that the agent commits to her choice. Anders Herlitz (2019) argues that Chang’s approach and other “two-step models” violate an intuitively plausible constraint on rational choice called Basic Contraction Consistency. By violating this constraint two-step models also allow for money pumps. This could, however, possibly be avoided by introducing additional formal conditions for the second step in the model (Herlitz 2019, 299–307).