  It is natural to initially diagnose the disagreement between actualists and possibilists as a disagreement about which act-sets agents can perform. However, the actualism/possibilism debate cuts across debates about the relevant sense(s) of “can”. Actualists and possibilists may agree with one another about which act-sets agents can perform in any given case. At bottom, their disagreement concerns which acts, from among the acts the agent can perform, are normatively relevant options for the agent. Less abstractly, actualists and possibilists may agree that Procrastinate can \(\langle X\rangle\), \(\langle Y\rangle\), or \(\langle Z\rangle\). After all, by stipulation, she can \(\langle a\rangle\) and if she \(\langle a\textrm{-s}\rangle\), then by stipulation she can \(\langle b\rangle\) and if she does that, then she will have performed \(\langle X\rangle \). Procrastinate can \(\langle X\rangle\), though one may still wonder whether she has the relevant kind of ability to \(\langle X\rangle \). That is, one may wonder whether \(\langle X\textrm{-ing}\rangle\) is a relevant option for the agent. It is this question that divides actualists and possibilists. Goldman (1976: 453 and 1978: 153) initially suggested that \(\langle X\textrm{-ing}\rangle\) is a relevant option for the agent, appealing to the following account of ability.