Abstract
AbstractThis paper explores what a Rule Consequentialist of Brad Hooker's sort can and should say about normative reasons for action. I claim that they can provide a theory of reasons, but that doing so requires distinguishing different roles of rules in the ideal code. Some rules in the ideal code specify reasons, while others perform different functions. The paper also discusses a choice that Rule Consequentialists face about how exactly to specify reasons. It ends by comparing the theory of reasons offered by Rule Consequentialism with the theory offered by Act Consequentialism, noting that Rule Consequentialism seems better able to explain moral constraints.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
