Abstract

Abstract
Act consequentialism assesses actions in terms of their consequences, while rule
consequentialism evaluates actions according to rules chosen for their good consequences.

According to the ‘ought implies can principle, a person ought to perform an action only if the person can perform the action. While the compatibility of act consequentialism with ‘ought implies can’ has been extensively debated, the relationship between rule consequentialism and ‘ought implies can’ remains unexplored in the literature.

In addressing this lacuna, the present paper contends that the currently most prevalent acceptance and teaching versions of rule consequentialism are incompatible with ‘ought implies can’.

Furthermore, it contends that the more traditional compliance versions of rule consequentialism are compatible with
‘ought implies can’. The paper also examines how acceptance and teaching versions of rule consequentialism can be modified to achieve compatibility with ‘ought implies can’ and discusses the costs inherent to such modifications.

Keywords
Rule consequentialism; ought implies can; acceptance; teaching; compliance