In the process by which the formation of self-efficacy through a sense of accomplishment strengthens the moral self, should the 'firm foundation of stability' that resolves existential anxiety be regarded, from a deontological standpoint, as a condition for fulfilling which specific moral duties?

First, the Embrace and Striving framework stands in direct opposition to deontology. Because humans have limited cognitive capacity, we are never able to fully discharge our moral duties. What we regard as duties (decisions that appear rational at the societal level or over the long term and on a macro scale) can be fulfilled only when particular environmental conditions or the cognitive resources available at the time permit compliance. Still, to show that it coheres well with the usual deontological perspective, let me explain: when a firm, stable foundation is in place, we become less likely to rely on irrational decisions driven by anxiety. This is because the solid, stable foundation is a mechanism for strengthening the influence of System 2 in the System 1 versus System 2 framework of behavioral economics, and it prepares the ground for an environment in which more rational reasoning can take place. Given that the main reason we violate moral duties, even while recognizing them as rational, is risk that is perceived as deeply important and urgent to us, a stable foundation that keeps the perception of this risk from being exaggerated and distorted is one of the good preparations for complying with duty.