… how rule consequentialism avoids any of the problems that the post (and comments/objections to it) talks about?
It… doesn’t? Who said that it does? I’m not even sure what that would mean; it seems like an almost entirely orthogonal issue…
(As for the uses of “rule”, that’s a fine question but I hesitate to write any lengthy commentary on it, because it seems like we have some sort of weird misunderstanding, and it may not even be relevant…)
It… doesn’t? Who said that it does? I’m not even sure what that would mean; it seems like an almost entirely orthogonal issue…
(As for the uses of “rule”, that’s a fine question but I hesitate to write any lengthy commentary on it, because it seems like we have some sort of weird misunderstanding, and it may not even be relevant…)