David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 19 (2):243-258 (2007)
Rule-consequentialism is frequently regarded as problematic since it faces the following powerful dilemma: either rule-consequentialism collapses into act-consequentialism or rule-consequentialism is inconsistent. Recent defenders of this theory such as Brad Hooker provide a careful response to this objection. By explicating the nature and theoretical commitments of rule-consequentialism, I contend that these maneuvers are not successful by offering a new way of viewing the dilemma which retains its force even in light of these recent discussions. The central idea is that even the most well-developed contemporary form of the view is ensnared in the following dilemma: as an agent-neutral consequentialist theory, rule-consequentialism is either inconsistent or it is desperately unmotivated as a form of consequentialism since it is committed to a non-consequentialist form of ultimate moral value
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alex Rajczi (2016). On the Incoherence Objection to Rule-Utilitarianism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):857-876.
Alex Rajczi (forthcoming). On the Incoherence Objection to Rule-Utilitarianism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice:1-20.
Robert F. Card (2010). Situationist Social Psychology and J. S. Mill's Conception of Character. Utilitas 22 (4):481-493.
Similar books and articles
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 (1991). Rule-Consequentialism and Demandingness: A Reply to Carson. Mind 100 (2):269-276.
Brad Hooker (1994). Is Rule-Consequentialism a Rubber Duck? Analysis 54 (2):92 - 97.
Thomas L. Carson (1991). A Note on Hooker's "Rule Consequentialism". Mind 100 (1):117-121.
Brad Hooker & Guy Fletcher (2008). Variable Versus Fixed-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):344–352.
Brad Hooker (2007). Rule-Consequentialism and Internal Consistency: A Reply to Card. Utilitas 19 (4):514-519.
Brad Hooker (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford University Press.
Iain Law (1999). Rule-Consequentialism's Dilemma. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3):263-276.
Richard Arneson (2005). Sophisticated Rule Consequentialism: Some Simple Objections. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads51 ( #85,978 of 1,911,681 )
Recent downloads (6 months)18 ( #35,240 of 1,911,681 )
How can I increase my downloads?