if the rule you want to violate is, say, “Don’t flee the scene of an accident,” or “Don’t start a war in the Middle East under false pretenses,” there is no “good deed” bank account with a high enough balance to excuse your behavior.
Imagine a rule-breaking situation in which we already meet Schur's two conditions (no harm to others + acknowledged as sub-ideal). Is Schur right to add that justified rule-breakings requires a positive "good-deed balance"?
