In his paper Rule-Consequentialism, Brad Hooker introduces and defends rule consequentialism by presenting the objections to utilitarianism and the merits of rule consequentialism. After proposing prospective objections to rule consequentialism and devising counterarguments to refute these oppositions, he concludes that such theory is thorough and widely applicable. 

His arguments start with the premise that act-utilitarianism entails many criticisms. First, to ensure the net happiness is maximized, act utilitarianism disregards if the pleasure is equally distributed. Second, act utilitarianism holds that we can harm people if this action leads to slightly more well-being (when a doctor kills a person and uses his organs to save another five). Third, act-utilitarianism is hugely demanding for self-sacrifice; it asks well-off people to donate and ignores the benefactor’s happiness. 

On the other end of the spectrum, deontological ethics represents another extreme. It contends that we should adhere to the societal rules no matter what the consequence is. However, laws have flaws, and they are not inherently divine. Can we follow our conscience and break the law for proper reasons? The deontological approach would say no. However, I believe the violation of law should be forgiven if it has a genuine intention and accords to most people’s values. 

Many people cannot identify with either act-utilitarianism or deontology, so Hooker advances another theory — rule consequentialism — to resolve problems in former approaches. 

Morality and human-made rules are indistinguishable. Morality stands as the fundamental principle for ideal laws. Effective laws cater to citizens' moral principles so that people will understand and follow.

Rule consequentialism incorporates the elements of deontological ethics while retaining the core of act utilitarianism. It evaluates an action based on its consequence and if it is following a rule that everyone agrees. It claims that killing can be wrong despite it brings good results because it violates the general rules (or ethics) accepted by most people.

Because these rules are formed based on past experiences (consequences), their rightness has been tested to evolve into ethics or regulations. So the forbidden of murder is a rule, and we should not violate it even if this may be beneficial in some circumstances. 

After the advancement of a new concept, Hooker restates the third drawbacks of act-utilitarianism, which is the supererogatory self-sacrifice it demands the rich for charitable giving. On the other hand, rule consequentialism avoids these problems because it demands few and equally throughout every rich person. 

Hooker realizes that rule-consequentialism isn't without flaws. He anticipates and addresses the problem of partial compliance to make his thesis more convincing. Partial compliance poses three threats to rule consequentialism. First, when others are not following a rule while you follow, will result in a slightly worse consequence. Second, when you perform a duty while others do not, you hurt while those who do not obey gain. Third, when others are not conforming to the rule, an extremely undesirable consequence is created. 

Hooker invokes Brandt’s reply to the objections above. Brandt suggests we should have incentives of actions based on a corresponding moral protocol, a desire to prevent harm, and an intention to promote full acceptance of the optimistic rules. I believe every action roots on these three criteria is carried out with a noble purpose and will ensure the positivity of outcome. Motivation and consequence are both critical when considering the ethics of conduct.

In the end, Hooker concludes that rule-consequentialism is the most suitable ethical theory in directing the correct behavior of individuals. He also admits that this theory needs further revision to settle some minor criticisms. 

Hooker employs facts and reasoning to craft a successful argument. However, his paper, from my perspective, has limitations. For example, although rule-consequentialism has a component in utilitarianism, he deliberately ignores a controversial criticism encountered by utilitarianism — we cannot correctly estimate the exact utility of an act, which makes comparisons between the benefits and costs of a moral action impossible. People who experience the same thing will have different feelings afterward; the satisfaction varies. 

Moreover, to get everyone’s consent of a rule is impossible. A revision of this facet will be, it does not matter if a rule is accepted by everyone, as long as the majority accepts and wants to obey, this rule will prevail in the group of people who comply. Besides, governments can carry out laws to force people to do something for the collective good (contribute to the public), such as submitting taxes. Police use brutal force to ensure the proceeding of laws, yet it should not be a means to coerce people toward the standard value. Instead, we should educate our citizens and uplift their moral standards. This way, they will sacrifice and contribute voluntarily. 

Non-governmental authorities can also make rules within a community; people have to abide by these rules before they enter this organization. 

Besides limitations, I think that rule consequentialism is a perfect theory. It defines good acts by two factors: first, everyone has a set of desires and motivations; second, the actions bring useful consequences. It avoids the shortsightedness by act utilitarianism and escapes from the rigidness of deontology.