Rule Consequentialism and Demandingness: The Wrong Solution(s)?

Abstract A textbook objection to consequentialism is that it is too demanding—on the assumption that a moral theory which is excessively demanding thereby loses plausibility. In this paper, I assess whether the mechanisms employed by two versions of rule consequentialism, those of Brad Hooker and Tim Mulgan, adequately meet the requirement of not being too demanding. I also examine whether the concept of human nature might help determine what should count as demanding for a moral theory. While this suggestion also faces significant challenges, I contend that prescribing less partiality towards the present generation may not be a drawback for the consequentialist frameworks under consideration.