Utilitas 19 (4):514-519 (2007)
AbstractRule-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
Similar books and articles
Inconsistency and the Theoretical Commitments of Hooker's Rule-Consequentialism.Robert F. Card - 2007 - Utilitas 19 (2):243-258.
Rule-Consequentialism and Demandingness: A Reply to Carson.Brad Hooker - 1991 - Mind 100 (2):269-276.
Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality.Brad Hooker - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Sophisticated Rule Consequentialism: Some Simple Objections.Richard Arneson - 2005 - Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251.
Variable Versus Fixed-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism.Brad Hooker & Guy Fletcher - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):344–352.
Indirect Consequentialism, Suboptimality, and Friendship.Matthew Tedesco - 2006 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):567–577.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Just Following the Rules: Collapse / Incoherence Problems in Ethics, Epistemology, and Argumentation Theory.Patrick Bondy - 2020 - In J. Anthony Blair & Christopher Tindale (eds.), Rigour and Reason: Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen. Windsor, ON, Canada: pp. 172-202.