 A proponent of securitism may reply that there’s simply nothing Sally can do at \(t_1\) that allows her to secure not killing anyone at \(t_5\), and thus having an obligation at \(t_1\) not to kill anyone at \(t_5\) concedes too much to possibilism. For, one of the core intuitions driving securitist views is that we should treat our non-securable futures in the same way we treat the futures of other agents; we should hold such futures fixed when determining our present moral obligations. This thought has led to an expansive discussion of the way in which actualist-possibilist scenarios raise fundamental questions about agency and how we are to conceive of our present selves in relation to our future selves (Louise 2009; Baker 2012).