The challenge is to give personal commitments appropriate weight without treating every cherished project as justified. Critics ask whether integrity can excuse avoidable harm; Williams-style objections ask what morality becomes if agents must view their deepest commitments as interchangeable inputs. Moral luck also complicates how agents understand the consequences of their choices.
Imagine declining involvement in a practice you oppose while knowing another participant might produce a worse result. Explain whether your objection concerns your contribution, a duty to those affected, or the costs to your integrity. Then test whether the same reason would defend a clearly harmful commitment. The comparison helps assess both sides of the debate: an account should recognize agency without turning personal identity into a universal exemption from demands made by others.