  Most, if not all participants, in the actualist-possibilist debate seem to assume that the agents have the ability at one time to perform an act that they would not in fact perform at a later time if they were in the relevant circumstances. For example, although Professor Procrastinate can ⟨agree to review the paper &amp; write the review⟩, she would, as a matter of fact, ⟨not write the review⟩ if she were to ⟨agree to review the paper⟩. In other words, she would do something (not write) other than what she can do (write). By holding fixed the fact that Procrastinate would ⟨not write the review⟩ even if she were to ⟨agree to review the paper⟩, it follows from actualism that Procrastinate ought to ⟨decline to review the paper⟩, even though she can ⟨agree to review the paper &amp; write the review⟩. This is because actualism roughly states that an agent ought to \(\phi\) just in case \(\phi\)-ing would result in a better outcome than any other alternative to \(\phi\)-ing. Recall the generic definition offered in the previous section.