Abstract

The text examines the problem of reducing the level of internalization of rules from the perspective of rules consequentialism defended by researcher Brad Hooker, in an attempt to demonstrate that the theory is quite unstable and that this results in objections in several aspects. Selecting the best consequences of a moral code for only a part of the population, that must internalize it, as Hooker proposes, emerges as a controversial issue among researchers of rules consequentialism. The degree of conflict expands when Hookerian theory fixed the rate of reduction in the level of internalization of rule in 90% of the population, establishing a standard percentage for people of future generations (2003, p. 248) internalize the rules that bring the best consequences to them, depreciating all other levels, above or below 90%, that can produce better consequences, under allegations that this is a measure to deal with those who do not follow the rules.