Brad Hooker's rule-consequentialism and T. M. Scanlon's contractualism have been some of the most debated ethical theories in normative ethics during the last twenty years or so. This article suggests that these theories can be compared at two levels. Firstly, what are the deep, structural differences between the rule-consequentialist and contractualist frameworks in which Hooker and Scanlon formulate their views? Secondly, what are the more superficial differences between Hooker's and Scanlon's formulations of these theories? Based on exploring these questions and several purported differences between Hooker's and Scanlon's views, this article argues that, at the structural level, the two theories are more similar than previous recognised. It suggests that there is only one candidate for a deeper difference and even it may not be that significant. This insight sheds new light on both contractualism and rule-consequentialism, and it will also help us to formulate better versions of the views.

中文翻译：

---

胡克规则后果论与斯坎伦契约论——再评价

Brad Hooker 的规则后果论和 TM Scanlon 的契约论在过去二十年左右的时间里一直是规范伦理学中最具争议的伦理理论。本文建议可以在两个层面上比较这些理论。首先，胡克和斯坎伦在其中形成观点的规则结果主义和契约主义框架之间的深刻结构差异是什么？其次，胡克和斯坎伦对这些理论的表述之间更表面的区别是什么？基于对这些问题以及胡克和斯坎伦观点之间几个据称差异的探讨，本文认为，在结构层面上，这两种理论比之前公认的更为相似。这表明只有一个候选者存在更深层次的差异，甚至可能并不那么重要。这种见解为契约主义和规则后果主义提供了新的思路，也将帮助我们形成更好的观点版本。