 If one accepts the common assumption that causing oneself to reason or choose in a way that does not accord with one’s preferences involves rendering oneself irrational, the former strategy can be thought of as aiming at rationally-induced irrationality. A fanciful but clear illustration of this strategy is presented in Derek Parfit’s work (1984). In Parfit’s example (which is labeled Schelling’s Answer to Armed Robbery because it draws on Thomas Schelling’s view that “it is not a universal advantage in situations of conflict to be inalienably and manifestly rational in decision and motivation” (Schelling 1960, 18)), a robber breaks into someone’s house and orders the owner, call him Moe, to open the safe in which he hoards his gold. The robber threatens to shoot Moe’s children unless Moe complies. But Moe realizes that both he and his children will probably be shot even if he complies, since the robber will want to get rid of them so that they cannot record his getaway car information and get it to the police (who will be arriving from the nearest town in about 15 minutes in response to Moe’s call, which was prompted by the first signs of the break-in). Fortunately, Moe has a special drug at hand that, if consumed, causes one to be irrational for a brief period. Recognizing that this drug is his only real hope, Moe consumes the drug and immediately loses his wits. He begins “reeling about the room” saying things like “Go ahead. I love my children. So please kill them” (Parfit 1984, 13). Given Moe’s current state, the robber cannot do anything that will induce Moe to open the safe. There is no point in killing Moe or his children. The only sensible thing to do now is to hurry off before the police arrive.