According to a recent family of views of structural rationality (or coherence), a combination of attitudes is coherent just in case it is possible for those attitudes to be jointly satisfied or successful. This paper argues that existing versions of this view face a dilemma. On the one hand, they face counterexamples, given standard assumptions about the satisfaction or success conditions of the relevant attitudes. On the other hand, modifying those satisfaction or success conditions to avoid such counterexamples would render these views unable to account for some central cases of incoherence. I then propose an alternative version of the view, according to which a combination of attitudes is coherent just in case it is logically possible for all of the present attitudes in that combination to fulfill their primary and secondary functional goals.
Wooram Lee (Sat,) studied this question.