 For contingent historical reasons, this debate has unfolded in such a way that the following background assumptions are made in the literature. First, likely for ease of exposition, everyone writes as if counterfactual determinism is true (Goldman 1976: 469; Greenspan 1978: 77). That is, it is assumed that there are facts about how an agent would (not simply might) act in any given situation. This assumption, however, is not necessary for the purposes of the debate (Portmore 2011: 56 fn. 1). Second, since everyone writes as if both counterfactual determinism is true and as if agents can act in a way in which they do not in fact act, those in the debate seem to assume compatibilism. Interestingly, the concerns raised by the actualism/possibilism debate still arise even if libertarianism about free will is assumed (Portmore 2011: 167 fn. 21). Describing the debate in libertarian terms, however, does add an extra layer of complexity to the discussion. Third, some form of maximizing consequentialism is generally assumed, again, likely for ease of exposition. The debate actually arises for any normative ethical theory that holds that there are at least pro tanto reasons to bring about the good, and so the importance of this debate extends far beyond forms of maximizing consequentialism (Bales 1972; Goldman 1976: 458 fn. 13). Fourth, the various positions in the debate are understood in terms of objective, rather than subjective, obligations, though the same issues arise with respect to both. Objective obligations are those determined by all of the normatively relevant facts, which include facts of which the agent may be unaware. By contrast, subjective obligations are determined by the agent’s epistemic state (such as her beliefs, or beliefs that would be supported by her evidence) concerning the normatively relevant facts (cf. Zimmerman 1996: 10–20; Portmore 2011: 12–23). Following the norms of the literature, these assumptions operate in the background of this encyclopedia entry as well. However, none actually need to be made in order for the debate to get off the ground.