Abstract
According to the Humean Best Systems Account, laws of nature are contingent generalizations in the best systematization of particular matters of fact. Recently, it has become popular to interpret the notion of a best system pragmatically. The best system is sensitive to our interests—that is, to our goals, abilities, and limitations. This account promises a metaphysically minimalistic analysis of laws that fits scientific practice. However, I argue that it is not as minimalistic as it might appear. The concepts of goals, abilities, and limitations that drive the analysis are modally-robust. This leads to a dilemma.
