The phrase "accepted a rule" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when referring to the act of agreeing to or adopting a specific guideline or principle.
Example: "After much discussion, the committee accepted a rule that would govern the new policy."
Alternatives: "adopted a rule" or "agreed to a rule".
We thus accepted a rule that maximised sensitivity and specificity at the expense of not achieving 100% sensitivity.
Suppose people generally accepted a rule that allows a doctor to transplant organs from a healthy person without consent when the doctor believes that this transplant will maximize utility.
Thus, instead of asking, "What would happen if everybody did that?", rule consequentialists should ask, "What would happen if everybody were permitted to do that?" People are permitted to do what violates no accepted rule, so asking what would happen if everybody were permitted to do an act is just the flip side of asking what would happen if people accepted a rule that forbids that act.
These results are consistent with the generally accepted "A-rule", namely that most replicative pols preferentially incorporate dAMP opposite an abasic site.
The N.H.L. Players Associationn, which has resisted a visor requirement, indicated its members might be willing to accept a rule with a grandfather clause.
Members of religious communities generally accept a rule of life that emphasizes humility and the renunciation of worldly goods and pleasures.
But, after five years of this work, the founders were obliged to accept a rule of strict enclosure, or cloistered life, which at the time was considered an indispensable adjunct of the religious life for women.
None of this is made any easier by the fact there seems to be nothing except peer pressure to force any regulator to accept a rule favored by the other regulators.
It was not until the 17th century that the attorneys and solicitors were expelled from the Inns and the division between advocate and attorney became rigid, and not until the 18th century did the barristers accept a rule that they would function only upon being engaged by an attorney not upon being retained directly by a client.
For such reasons, some rule utilitarians conclude that it would not maximize utility for people generally to accept a rule that allows doctors to transplant organs from unwilling donors.
This doctrine holds that since the "'parent' state has accepted a given rule of IHL", the state may impose the obligations upon its nationals, including those who take up arms against the state or other nationals (Kleffner 2011, 445).
