Utilitas 19 (4):514-519 (2007)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Variable Versus Fixed-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism.Brad Hooker & Guy Fletcher - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):344–352.
Sophisticated Rule Consequentialism: Some Simple Objections.Richard Arneson - 2005 - Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251.
Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality.Brad Hooker - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Virtue Ethics Vs. Rule-Consequentialism: A Reply to Brad Hooker.Rosalind Hursthouse - 2002 - Utilitas 14 (1):41.
Rule-Consequentialism and Demandingness: A Reply to Carson.Brad Hooker - 1991 - Mind 100 (2):269-276.
Inconsistency and the Theoretical Commitments of Hooker's Rule-Consequentialism.Robert F. Card - 2007 - Utilitas 19 (2):243-258.
Indirect Consequentialism, Suboptimality, and Friendship.Matthew Tedesco - 2006 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):567–577.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads102 ( #47,924 of 2,153,834 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #13,433 of 2,153,834 )
How can I increase my downloads?