Sen’s critique of the homo economicus conception of choice asserts that agents who displace‘ their goals, and instead choose on the basis of others‘, are not therefore irrational. I first defend Sen against the objection that violations of „self-goal choice“ undermine coherent deliberation. My critique of Sen then introduces the notion of negative goals‘ and shows that the process of adopting others‘ aims remains constrained by those `goals‘ that determine the spectrum of actions that an agent considers permissible. Only on rare occasions are we pushed to violate even these negative goals that play a central role for our identities.