1. "The way in which the rule of promising specifies the appropriate circumstances and excusing conditions determines whether the practice it represents is just. For example, in order to make a binding promise, one must be fully conscious, in a rational frame of mind, and know the meaning of the operative words, their use in making promises, and so on. Furthermore, these words must be spoken freely or voluntarily, when one is not subject to threats or coercion, and in situations where one has a reasonably fair bargaining position..." Here it is indicated that if a promise is not considered as "just", the promiser will not be bound by those words - can we argue that an unjust promise can still be binding?
2. Concerning the questions of priority: how are these duties to be balanced when they come into conflict, either with each other or with obligations, and with the good that can be achieved by supererogatory actions - why is it not feasible to invoke the utilitarian principle to set things straight?
Apologies for the late submission, I got confused between this course and Justice and Legitimacy.