Utilitas 19 (4):514-519 (2007)
|Abstract||Rule-consequentialism has been accused of either collapsing into act-consequentialism or being internally inconsistent. I have tried to develop a form of rule-consequentialism without these flaws. In this June's issue of Utilitas, Robert Card argued that I have failed. Here I assess his arguments|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brad Hooker (1994). Is Rule-Consequentialism a Rubber Duck? Analysis 54 (2):92 - 97.
Brad Hooker & Guy Fletcher (2008). Variable Versus Fixed-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):344–352.
Richard Arneson (2005). Sophisticated Rule Consequentialism: Some Simple Objections. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251.
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.
Rosalind Hursthouse (2002). Virtue Ethics Vs. Rule-Consequentialism: A Reply to Brad Hooker. Utilitas 14 (01):41-.
Robert Guay (2005). A Refutation of Consequentialism. Metaphilosophy 36 (3):348-362.
Brad Hooker (1991). Rule-Consequentialism and Demandingness: A Reply to Carson. Mind 100 (2):269-276.
Robert F. Card (2007). Inconsistency and the Theoretical Commitments of Hooker's Rule-Consequentialism. Utilitas 19 (2):243-258.
Matthew Tedesco (2006). Indirect Consequentialism, Suboptimality, and Friendship. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):567–577.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads39 ( #34,698 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?