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

Brad Hooker
University of Reading
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
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/mind/C.398.269
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: 69,959
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

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

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
125 ( #93,258 of 2,504,602 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,529 of 2,504,602 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes