 On a rough definition, according to actualism, Procrastinate is obligated to decline to review the paper because what would actually happen if she were to decline is better than what would actually happen if she were to agree to review the paper. By contrast, according to possibilism, Procrastinate is obligated to agree to review the paper because doing so is part of the best series of possible actions that Procrastinate can perform over her life. Now that we’ve covered how these views generally come apart, we will focus on the more precise formulations of these views in subsequent sections. It should also be noted that counterfactuals like (1) and (2) are assumed to be true at least partly in virtue of Procrastinate’s imperfect moral character. However, such counterfactuals can also be true as a result of an agent’s ignorance, as a result of lacking the dexterity to perform an act, and as a result of an agent’s inability to comprehend some future act (Goldman 1978:198; Bykvist 2002: 50). For the purposes of this entry, we will focus on an agent’s imperfect moral character since this factor seems to be the driving force behind many points of disagreement between actualists and possibilists.