Reddit reviews Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality

I've thought for years (5 years, I suppose) it would be fun to see an LDer scrap Utilitarianism and go for Brad Hooker's Rule Consequentialism derived from Ideal Code, Real World. The dude's writing is accessible, it's only about 130 pages long, and it is pretty damn good in terms of thinking through potential objections. Here's the Notre Dame Philosophy Review's... well... review, on the book.

1. You're not "maximizing the good." Hooker is taking a social standpoint of distribution of goods. In short, if the worst off get fucked, it's not worth doing. This cuts you out from linking to util=justification for slavery arguments.
   
   
2. It's not Act Utilitarian.
   
   
3. It's not Utilitarian, period.
   
   
4. Hooker addresses tenability of the theory by doing a thorough assessment of demandingness. Many deontologists reject rule consequentialism because you're supposed to develop some sort of thorough "rule book" that tells you what to do in every situation. If you have to pull out a rule book (even just a mental rule book) for every action, you'll never be able to, well, act. An act utilitarian get a free-pass because they develop their solutions in the moment. Deontologists get a pass because they have a theorem that will tell them what to do (like the Categorical Imperative). Hooker argues that a balance in complexity of rules with wide-understanding can be reached under which you can reasonably expect others to conform to the moral rules. For example, "Do not kill" is a pretty easy rule for everyone to know. "Do not kill unless the following is true: Condition, condition, condition..." gets more complicated. The more complicated it is, the harder it will be for people to learn the rules. But there's a balance where a fair distribution of goods tends to be maximized with rules of adequate complexity.
   
   
5. Chapter 6 is all about prohibitions. Relevant to this topic.
   
   
6. Because of Hooker's approach to balancing complexity of rules, he gets more flexibility on topics depending on the contention evidence you find. Would a ban on handguns but not other guns be too complex for people to learn and be held morally accountable? Then Hooker says you can't do it. Would a ban on handguns be a reasonable caveat to the right to bear arms that would tend to result in a better state of affairs? Then the moral rule can be taken.

I don’t know brother. We think the same way.

I’m looking at Scanlon’s contractualism and this https://www.amazon.com/Ideal-Code-Real-World-Rule-Consequentialist/dp/0199256578