 What about the significance of the second requirement? For Bratman, if one is concerned about how one will see matters at the conclusion of one’s plan or at appropriate stages along the way, then one will, other things equal, avoid adjusting one’s plan in ways that one will regret in the future. So Bratman’s planning conception of rationality includes a “no-regret condition.” And, according to Bratman, given this condition, his conception of rationality gives intuitively plausible guidance in cases of temptation like the case of the self-torturer or the retirement contribution case. In particular, it implies that, in such cases, the rational planner will adopt a plan and refrain from adjusting it. For in both sorts of cases, if the simple fact that one’s preferences favor adjusting one’s plan leads one to adjust it, one is bound to end up, via repeated adjustments of one’s plan, in the situation one finds unacceptable. One is thus bound to experience future regret. And, while Bratman allows that regret can sometimes be misguided—which is why he does not present avoiding regret as an exceptionless imperative—there are not, for Bratman, any special considerations that would make regret misguided if one gave into temptation in cases like the case of the self-torturer or the retirement contribution case.