Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):362-373 (1996)

Authors
Tim Mulgan
University of Auckland
Abstract
A common objection to _act consequentialism (AC) is that it makes unreasonable demands on moral agents. _Rule consequentialism (RC) is often presented as a less demanding alternative. It is argued that this alleged virtue of RC is false, as RC will not be any less demanding in practice than AC. It is then demonstrated that RC has an additional (hitherto unnoticed) vice, as it relies upon the undefended simplifying assumption that the best possible consequences would arise in a society in which everyone followed the same rules. Once this "_homogeneity assumption" is rejected, RC is unable to provide a workable alternative to AC
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,369
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Two Conceptions of Benevolence.Tim Mulgan - 1997 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (1):62-79.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-11-03

Total views
26 ( #420,213 of 2,448,864 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #444,630 of 2,448,864 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes