What should we conclude from this instrumental analogue of Carroll’s paradox?  Railton (1997) argues that it shows that a certain form of skepticism about rationality—specifically, one’s asking “Why should I comply with the norms of practical rationality?”—can be answered.  First, the asking of this skeptical question reveals a commitment to at least instrumental rationality, since one is here questioning whether being practically rational would advance one’s ends.  And, second, the instrumental analogue of Carroll’s paradox shows that we can’t think of this commitment to instrumental rationality as merely another end the agent accepts and could dismiss at will.  If the skeptic thinks it is, Railton suggests that “we can answer ‘No, on pain of regress, it cannot be just another end of yours’” (p. 317).