A sibling of this objection is that rule-consequentialism makes the justification of rules depend on the wrong facts (Arneson 2005; Portmore 2009).
This approach to the justification of rules of inductive logic without the label "reflective equilibrium"—was proposed by Nelson Goodman in his classic Fact, Fiction, and Forecast (Goodman 1955).
For a taste of what they can do, notice that they yield a succinct justification of a rule of Uniform Substitution, whereby a formula of the form $A(B/p)$ is a theorem whenever $A$ is a theorem, provided that $B$ is free for $p$ in $A$.
Harnessing Pride For the Communist Party, nationalism has always been a central justification of its rule.
In the 17th century many intellectuals (some of them clerics such as Bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet [1627 1704]) developed a Hobbesian justification of absolutist rule, which was renewed throughout the 18th century.
Argentine policy is made by military men whose nationalist values are mixed with personal ambitions, phobias against politicians, "progressive" priests and "corrupt" businessmen, and a moralistic justification of military rule.
It is important to stress that Gauthier does not base the public justification of a rule or law on the aggregate utility it will produce across persons.
A related objection to rule-consequentialism is that rule-consequentialism makes the justification of familiar rules contingent on various empirical facts, such as what human nature is like, and how many people there are in need or in positions to help.
The bulk of big rulemaking documents like Restoring Internet Freedom isn't composed of the actual rules but in the justification of those rules.
In proof theory, little attention has been paid to atomic systems, although there has been Lorenzen's early work (see section 2.1.1), where the justification of logical rules is embedded in a theory of arbitrary rules, and Martin-Löf's (1971) theory of iterated inductive definitions where introduction and elimination rules for atomic formulas are proposed.
"The purpose of this policy is to identify patterns that could indicate market disruption, which could occur given the additional standards that apply" to insurance starting next year, the administration said in a justification of the rules adopted by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services.
