 Not everyone has been deterred. Some heterodox writers, working outside of the Kantian tradition, continue searching for a way to ground supererogation in obligations to oneself. A notable example is Shelly Kagan (1989, 206–16) and his pioneering “Self-Constraint Argument.” Suppose – a big “suppose” – that you have the same waivable obligations to yourself as you do to others. Let’s consider one such right; the right against yourself not to do yourself harm. From this, we try to show that harming yourself for the greater good of others – for example, by giving a spare kidney – will be purely optional. It is permissible to make the sacrifice because you can just waive your obligation; the act would then be like performing a kidney transplant on a willing donor. It is permissible not to self-sacrifice because you can just refuse to waive your obligation, which makes it wrong to self-harm; the act would then be like stealing a kidney from an unwilling “donor.” The result is that giving your spare kidney is optional even if it’s for the greater good: you can give yourself consent to do it, or refuse consent and rightfully keep the kidney. Kagan ultimately rejects this argument for a panoply of reasons. The other key proposal is due to Paul Hurley (1995), who derives the optionality of self-harm from “patient-protecting reasons,” which are like unwaivable obligations – in this case, obligations to oneself. These reasons open a “protected sphere” of actions. Muñoz (2021) objects that Hurley’s and Kagan’s arguments both struggle with the Wrongness Problem. For Hurley, the problem is that a patient-protecting reason not to harm yourself would make it wrong to give your kidney. For Kagan, the same appears to follow if you decline to “self-consent.”