What determines whether an action is right or wrong? One appealing idea
is that a moral code ought to contain a number of rules that tell people
how to behave and that are simple and few enough to be easily learned.
Another appealing idea is that the consequences of actions matter, often
more than anything else. Rule consequentialism tries to weave these two
ideas into a general theory of morality. This theory holds that morally
wrong actions are the ones forbidden by rules whose acceptance would
maximize the overall good. Morality, Rules, and Consequences: A Critical
Reader explores for students and researchers the relationship between
consequentialist theory and moral rules. Most of the chapters focus on
rule consequentialism or on the distinction between act and rule
versions of consequentialism. Contributors, among them the leading
philosophers in the discipline, suggest ways of assessing whether rule
consequentialism could be a satisfactory moral theory. These essays, all
of which are previously unpublished, provide students in moral
philosophy with essential material and ask key questions on just what
the criteria for an adequate moral theory might be.
