Conflicting duties › What remains after a duty gives way?

Ross connects an overridden prima facie duty with a continuing moral significance. In discussing justified failures to fulfill promises, he recognizes the appropriateness of compunction and making amends. The rejected consideration was a genuine claim even though another action was required overall.

This should not be expressed as a simple contradiction: "I did my actual duty, therefore I also acted wrongly overall." The account distinguishes a right-making feature from the complete verdict. Regret about a disappointed claim need not show that the complete verdict was mistaken.

Return to the move. If helping in the emergency was required, apologizing to the friend need not retract that judgment. It can acknowledge the reliance created by the promise. Offering practical assistance later can respond to the inconvenience without pretending that the emergency should have been ignored.

This possibility is one attraction of the distinction. Deliberation does not end with declaring a winner among duties. There can remain a question about the relationships affected by the decision. The appropriate response depends on what actually happened; an apology or compensation should not be prescribed without considering whether anyone has suffered a loss or has a claim to it.