Rule-consequentialism and demandingness: A reply to Carson

Mind 100 (2):269-276 (1991)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This paper replies to Carson's attacks on an earlier paper of Hooker's. Carson argued that rule-consequentialism--the theory that an act is morally right if and only if it is allowed by the set of rules and corresponding virtues the having of which by everyone would bring about the best consequences considered impartially--can and does require the comfortably off to make enormous sacrifices in order to help the needy. Hooker defends rule-consequentialism against Carson's arguments



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,569

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

125 (#98,676)

6 months
1 (#418,511)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Brad Hooker
University of Reading

Citations of this work

Is Rule-Consequentialism a Rubber Duck?Brad Hooker - 1994 - Analysis 54 (2):92 - 97.
Hare on Utilitarianism and Intuitive Morality.Tom Carson - 1993 - Erkenntnis 39 (3):305 - 331.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references