This paper explores what a Rule Consequentialist of Brad Hooker's sort can and should say about normative reasons for action. I claim that they can provide a theory of reasons, but that doing so requires distinguishing different roles of rules in the ideal code. Some rules in the ideal code specify reasons, while others perform different functions. The paper also discusses a choice that Rule Consequentialists face about how exactly to specify reasons. It ends by comparing the theory of reasons offered by Rule Consequentialism with the theory offered by Act Consequentialism, noting that Rule Consequentialism seems better able to explain moral constraints.

中文翻译：

---

规则结果论者的原因

本文探讨了布拉德·胡克 (Brad Hooker) 类型的规则结果论者可以而且应该对行为的规范性理由发表什么看法。我声称他们可以提供原因理论，但这样做需要区分规则在理想代码中的不同角色。理想代码中的某些规则指定了原因，而其他规则则执行不同的功能。该论文还讨论了规则结果主义者面临的关于如何准确指定原因的选择。它最后比较了规则结果论提供的原因理论与行为结果论提供的理论，并指出规则结果论似乎能够更好地解释道德约束。