Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):344–352 (2008)
|Abstract||Fixed-rate versions of rule-consequentialism and rule-utilitarianism evaluate rules in terms of the expected net value of one particular level of social acceptance, but one far enough below 100% social acceptance to make salient the complexities created by partial compliance. Variable-rate versions of rule-consequentialism and rule-utilitarianism instead evaluate rules in terms of their expected net value at all different levels of social acceptance. Brad Hooker has advocated a fixed-rate version. Michael Ridge has argued that the variable-rate version is better. The debate continues here. Of particular interest is the difference between the implications of Hooker's and Ridge's rules about doing good for others.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brad Hooker (1996). Ross-Style Pluralism Versus Rule-Consequentialism. Mind 105 (420):531-552.
Ben Eggleston (2007). Conflicts of Rules in Hooker's Rule-Consequentialism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (3):329-349.
Conrad D. Johnson (1991). Moral Legislation: A Legal-Political Model for Indirect Consequentialist Reasoning. Cambridge University Press.
Brad Hooker (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford University Press.
Michael Ridge (2009). Climb Every Mountain? Ratio 22 (1):59-77.
Richard Arneson (2005). Sophisticated Rule Consequentialism: Some Simple Objections. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251.
Michael Ridge (2006). Introducing Variable-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (223):242 - 253.
By Michael Ridge (2006). Introducing Variable-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (223):242–253.
Holly Smith (2010). Measuring the Consequences of Rules. Utilitas 22 (4):413-433.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads98 ( #8,151 of 722,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,863 )
How can I increase my downloads?