Rule-consequentialism

Abstract

Rule-consequentialism proposes that whether an action is morally right depends on whether it comes from a set of rules and consequences that would produce the most overall good if everyone were to fully comply with said rules. This theory is immune to prominent objections found in other consequentialist theories, such as the interpersonal comparisons of utility, the inability to accommodate fairness or equality in the distribution of benefits and burdens, and the dismissal of deontological considerations. However, rule-consequentialism is susceptible to what’s known as the partial compliance objection: it is possible for an action that adheres to this theory’s rules and consequences to produce bad outcomes if not everyone were to comply with the same set of rules and consequences. While a reply for this objection lies in incorporating a strong principle against allowing serious harm, it leads to a new problem, as obeying this principle could lead to excessively demanding requirements. – AI-generated abstract.