- Richard Arneson (2005). Sophisticated Rule Consequentialism: Some Simple Objections. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251.
- Allen Buchanan (1999). Rule-Governed Institutions Versus Act-Consequentialism: A Rejoinder to Naticchia. Philosophy and Public Affairs 28 (3):258–270.
- Robert F. Card (2007). Inconsistency and the Theoretical Commitments of Hooker's Rule-Consequentialism. Utilitas 19 (2):243-258.
- Thomas Carson, A Note on Hooker's "Rule Consequentialism" Thomas L. Carson.
- Thomas Carson, Rule-Consequentialism and Demandingness: A Reply to Carson.
- Thomas L. Carson (1991). A Note on Hooker's "Rule Consequentialism". Mind 100 (1):117-121.
- Ben Eggleston (2007). Conflicts of Rules in Hooker's Rule-Consequentialism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (3):329-349.
- Fred Feldman (1984). Hare's Proof. Philosophical Studies 45 (2):269 - 283.
- Fred Feldman (1980). The Principle of Moral Harmony. Journal of Philosophy 77 (3):166-179.
- Fred Feldman (1974). On the Extensional Equivalence of Simple and General Utilitarianism. Noûs 8 (2):185-194.
- Richard Fumerton (1990). Group Action and Act Consequentialism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 15 (1):296-310.
- Holly S. Goldman (1978). The 'Collective' Interpretation of Utilitarian Generalization. Philosophical Studies 34 (2):207 - 209.
- Holly S. Goldman (1976). Reply to Silverstein. Philosophical Studies 30 (1):57 - 61.
- Holly S. Goldman (1974). David Lyons on Utilitarian Generalization. Philosophical Studies 26 (2):77 - 95.
- Brad Hooker, Promises and Rule-Consequentialism.
- Brad Hooker (2007). Rule-Consequentialism and Internal Consistency: A Reply to Card. Utilitas 19 (4):514-519.
- Brad Hooker (2005). Reply to Arneson and McIntyre. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):264–281.
- Brad Hooker (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford University Press.
- Brad Hooker (1998). Rule-Consequentialism and Obligations Toward the Needy. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (1):19–33.
- Brad Hooker (1996). Ross-Style Pluralism Versus Rule-Consequentialism. Mind 105 (420):531-552.
- Brad Hooker (1995). Rule-Consequentialism, Incoherence, Fairness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95:19 - 35.
- Brad Hooker (1994). Is Rule-Consequentialism a Rubber Duck? Analysis 54 (2):92 - 97.
- Brad Hooker (1991). Rule-Consequentialism and Demandingness: A Reply to Carson. Mind 100 (2):269-276.
- Brad Hooker (1990). Rule-Consequentialism. Mind 99 (393):67-77.
- Frances Howard-Snyder (1993). Rule Consequentialism Is a Rubber Duck. American Philosophical Quarterly 30 (3):271 - 278.
- Rosalind Hursthouse (2002). Virtue Ethics Vs. Rule-Consequentialism: A Reply to Brad Hooker. Utilitas 14 (01):41-.
- Conrad D. Johnson (1991). Moral Legislation: A Legal-Political Model for Indirect Consequentialist Reasoning. Cambridge University Press.
- Leonard Kahn, How Many Codes Are Ideal?
- Leonard Kahn (2013). Rule Consequentialism and Disasters. Philosophical Studies 162 (2):219-236.
- Iain Law (1999). Rule-Consequentialism's Dilemma. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3):263-276.
- A. Moore (2002). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (1):113 – 114.
- Tim Mulgan (1994). Rule Consequentialism and Famine. Analysis 54 (3):187 - 192.
- Jacob Nebel (2012). A Counterexample to Parfit's Rule Consequentialism. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.
- Douglas W. Portmore, Chapter 5: Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism: Reasons, Morality, and Overridingness.
- Douglas W. Portmore (forthcoming). Parfit on Reasons and Rule Consequentialism. In Simon Kirchin (ed.), Reading Parfit. Routledge.
- Douglas W. Portmore (2009). Rule-Consequentialism and Irrelevant Others. Utilitas 21 (03):368-.
- Douglas W. Portmore (2008). Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism. Philosophical Studies 138 (3):409 - 427.
- Douglas W. Portmore (2001). Can an Act-Consequentialist Theory Be Agent Relative? American Philosophical Quarterly 38 (4):363-77.
- Michael Ridge (2009). Climb Every Mountain? Ratio 22 (1):59-77.
- Jacob Ross, S K B C ?
- Jacob Ross (2009). Should Kantians Be Consequentialists? Ratio 22 (1):126-135.
- Jörg Schroth (2004). Brad Hooker, Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (1):91-94.
- William H. Shaw (2001). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Brad Hooker. Mind 110 (440):1074-1077.
- Harry S. Silverstein & Holly S. Goldman (1976). Goldman's 'Level-2' Act Descriptions and Utilitarian Generalization. Philosophical Studies 30 (1):45 - 55.
- Holly Smith (2010). Measuring the Consequences of Rules. Utilitas 22 (4):413-433.
- Philip Stratton-Lake (1997). Can Hooker's Rule-Consequentialist Principle Justify Ross's Prima Facie Duties? Mind 106 (424):751-758.
- Jussi Suikkanen (2008). A Dilemma for Rule-Consequentialism. Philosophia 36 (1):141-150.
- Peter Vallentyne (2006). Against Maximizing Act-Consequentialism (December 2, 2010) in Moral Theories Edited by Jamie Dreier (Blackwell Publishers, 2006), Pp. 21-37. [REVIEW] In Dreier Jamie (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Moral Theories. Blackwell Publishers.
- Peter Vallentyne (2006). Against Maximizing Act-Consequentialism (June 30, 2008). In James Dreier (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Moral Theories. Blackwell Publishers.
- Edmund Wall (2009). Hooker's Consequentialism and the Depth of Moral Experience. Dialogue 48 (02):337-.
- Eric Wiland (2010). The Incoherence Objection in Moral Theory. Acta Analytica 25 (3):279-284.
- Christopher Woodard, The Common Structure of Kantianism and Act Consequentialism.
- Christopher Woodard (2008). A New Argument Against Rule Consequentialism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (3):247 - 261.
|
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
Email
|
RSS feed
|
|