Several recent formulations of Rule Consequentialism (RC) have broken with the consensus that RC should be formulated in terms of code acceptance, claiming instead that RC should focus on the consequences of codes' being taught. I begin this article with an examination of the standard case for acceptance formulations. In addition to depending on the mistaken assumption that compliance and acceptance formulations are the only options, the standard case claims advantages for acceptance formulations that, upon closer examination, favor teaching formulations. In the remainder of the article, I defend this new teaching-centered approach against some recent criticisms. I argue that preoccupation with the somewhat technical problem of identifying the best criterion for making choices under conditions of uncertainty has distracted rule consequentialists from paying more careful attention to the advantages and disadvantages that result from decisions concerning where they locate RC's stipulated assumptions within the theory.

中文翻译：

---

从遵从，到接受，再到教导：重定位规则后果论的规定

规则后果论 (RC) 的一些最新表述已经打破了 RC 应该根据代码来表述的共识验收，而是声称 RC 应该关注代码被执行的后果教过. 我以考察验收公式的标准案例开始本文。除了取决于错误的假设遵守和验收公式是唯一的选择，标准案例声称接受公式的优势，经过仔细检查，有利于教学公式。在本文的其余部分，我为这种以教学为中心的新方法辩护，反对最近的一些批评。我认为，专注于确定在不确定条件下做出选择的最佳标准这一有点技术性的问题已经分散了规则后果主义者的注意力，他们没有更加仔细地关注关于他们在理论中将 RC 规定的假设置于何处的决定所产生的优点和缺点。