  Possibilists have responded by suggesting that the intuitive force of this objection stems from failing to appreciate the distinction between conditional and unconditional obligations. The possibilist obligation is meant to pick out agents’ unconditional obligations and it supposedly is not problematic for agents to have unconditional obligations that, if acted upon, would result in the worst possible outcome (Greenspan 1978: 81; Zimmerman 2017: 126–128). So, while it’s true that possibilism entails that Procrastinate has an unconditional obligation to ⟨agree to review the paper⟩ in virtue of her unconditional obligation to ⟨agree to review the paper &amp; review the paper⟩, it may also be true that she has a conditional obligation to ⟨decline to review the paper⟩ given that she would ⟨not review the paper⟩ if she were to ⟨agree to review the paper⟩. More generally, possibilists can respond by holding that agents have an unconditional obligation to do the best they can, but incur conditional obligations to bring about the next best outcome if they won’t bring about the best outcome. The distinction between conditional and unconditional obligations will be further explored in  section 5.