One such argument proceeds from the "agglomeration principle" and the principle that ought implies can. According to the "agglomeration principle", if an agent ought to do one thing and ought to do another thing then this agent ought to do both things. According to "ought implies can", if an agent ought to do both things then the agent can do both things. But if the agent can do both things, there is no conflict between the two courses of action and therefore no dilemma. It may be necessary for defenders to deny either the "agglomeration principle" or the principle that "ought implies can". Either choice is problematic since these principles are quite fundamental.