If goals are to fulfil their typical function of regulating action in a way that contributes to an agent’s long-term interests in getting what he or she wants, they need to have a certain stability. At the same time, it is not difficult to imagine situations in which the agent could have a reason to revise his or her goals; goals that are entirely impossible to achieve or approach to a meaningful degree appear to warrant some modification. This chapter addresses the question of when it is rationally justified to reconsider one’s prior goals. In doing so, it enriches the strictly instrumental conception of rationality. Using Bratman’s (1992; 1999) theory of intention and Edvardsson and Hansson’s (2005) theory of rational goal-setting, the chapter critically analyses the steps in the argumentative chain that ought to be considered before it can be concluded that a decision maker has sufficient reason to reconsider her goals. Two sets of revision-prompting considerations are identified: achievability- and desirability-related considerations. It is argued that changes in the agent’s beliefs about the goal’s achievability and/or desirability could give her a prima facie reason to reconsider the goal. However, whether there is sufficient reason—all things considered—to revise the goal hinges on additional factors. Three such factors are discussed: pragmatic, moral and symbolic factors.