How do we think about what we plan to do? One dominant answer is that we select the best available option. When that answer is quantified it can be expressed mathematically, thus generating a maximizing account of practical reason. However, a growing number of philosophers would offer a different answer: because we are not equipped to maximize, we often choose the next best alternative, one that is no more than satisfactory. This strategy choice is called satisficing (a term coined by the economist Herbert Simon). This new collection of essays explores both these accounts of practical reason, examining the consequences for adopting one or the other for moral theory in general and the theory of practical rationally in particular. It aims to address a constituency larger than contemporary moral philosopher and brings these questions to the attention of those interested in the applications of decisions theory in economic, psychology, and political science.