Rule consequentialism evaluates acts by whether they conform to rules that, if generally followed, would produce the best outcomes—combining consequentialism's outcome focus with rules' predictability. Critics charge that this collapses into act consequentialism (why follow a rule when breaking it produces better outcomes?) or is incoherent (why are outcomes only relevant for rule selection, not act evaluation?). Defenders argue that rule-following has indirect benefits—trust, coordination—missed by case-by-case analysis.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
all ethical theories agree on the role of rules
hybrid ethical theories may face challenges about the consistency of their combining principles
rule consequentialism is identical to act consequentialism
case-by-case analysis always captures all relevant moral considerations
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Critics question whether combining outcomes and rules is coherent.
- Context clues: Critics charge it "collapses" into act consequentialism or is "incoherent."
- Meaning: Combining principles creates consistency questions.
- Verify: The tension between outcome focus and rule-following is the core challenge.
💡 Strategy: When hybrid views are challenged for internal inconsistency, infer combining principles is difficult.
Choice A is incorrect because the debate is precisely about the role of rules. Choice C is incorrect because defenders argue they're distinct (indirect benefits of rules). Choice D is incorrect because rule-following captures "trust, coordination—missed by case-by-case analysis."