1. What does he mean by, “It seems appropriate at this juncture to note the familiar distinction between a duty other things equal (a so-called prima facie duty), and a duty all things considered. (A parallel distinction holds for obligations.)”? à page 299 2nd paragraph
2. He says that “The injustice of a law is not, in general, a sufficient reason for not adhering to it any more than the legal validity of legislation (as defined by the existing constitution) is a sufficient reason for going along with it. When the basic structure of society is reasonably just, as estimated by what the current state of things allows, we are to recognize unjust laws as binding provided that they do not exceed certain limits of injustice.” à page 308 2nd paragraph
Isn’t it really difficult to justify which laws that do not exceed certain limits of injustice? What additional measures should be taken into account to have valid assessment?