Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251 (2005)

Richard J. Arneson
University of California, San Diego
The popularity of rule-consequentialism among philosophers has waxed and waned. Waned, mostly; at least lately. The idea that the morality that ought to claim allegiance is the ideal code of rules whose acceptance by everybody would bring about best consequences became the object of careful analysis about half a century ago, in the writings of J. J. C. Smart, John Rawls, David Lyons, Richard Brandt, Richard Hare, and others.1 They considered utilitarian versions of rule consequentialism but discovered flaws in the view that attach to the wider consequentialist doctrine. In the eyes of many, the flaws were decisive. Brad Hooker has produced brilliant work that unsettles this complacent consensus.2 Over a period of several years he has produced a sustained and powerful defense of a version of rule consequentialism that does not obviously succumb to the criticisms that have been thought to render this doctrine a nonstarter. He acknowledges intellectual debts to Richard Brandt. But Hooker avoid certain excrescences in Brandt’s efforts to conceive of morality as an ideal code of rules. Most notably, Hooker eschews Brandt’s misguided attempt to derive some version of rule utilitarianism from an underlying commitment to some form of contractualism. Moreover, Hooker has worked to articulate a version of rule consequentialism in sufficient detail that one can see how the different parts of the doctrine hang together and how the best version of the..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1533-6077.2005.00064.x
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: 70,079
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

Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point.R. M. Hare (ed.) - 1981 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Two Concepts of Rules.John Rawls - 1955 - Philosophical Review 64 (1):3-32.
Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism.David Lyons - 1965 - Oxford: Clarendon Press.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Consequentialism.Douglas W. Portmore - forthcoming - In Christian Miller (ed.), Bloomsbury Handbook of Ethics. Bloomsbury.
Variable Versus Fixed-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism.Brad Hooker & Guy Fletcher - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):344–352.
Promises.Allen Habib - 2009 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Some Moral Benefits of Ignorance.Jimmy Alfonso Licon - forthcoming - Philosophical Psychology:1-18.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Refutation of Consequentialism.Robert Guay - 2005 - Metaphilosophy 36 (3):348-362.
Variable Versus Fixed-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism.Brad Hooker & Guy Fletcher - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):344–352.
Rule-Consequentialism's Dilemma.Iain Law - 1999 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3):263-276.
Rule Consequentialism and Disasters.Leonard Kahn - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (2):219-236.
Rule-Consequentialism.Brad Hooker - 1990 - Mind 99 (393):67-77.
Reply to Arneson and McIntyre.Brad Hooker - 2005 - Philosophical Issues 15 (1):264–281.
A Dilemma for Rule-Consequentialism.Jussi Suikkanen - 2008 - Philosophia 36 (1):141-150.
Conflicts of Rules in Hooker’s Rule-Consequentialism.Ben Eggleston - 2007 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (3):329-349.


Added to PP index

Total views
222 ( #50,813 of 2,506,037 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #170,037 of 2,506,037 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes