This paper focuses on Brad Hooker's moral theory which is a version of rule-consequentialism and is developed in Ideal Code, Real World. The paper starts with a reconstruction of the theory. I then go on to criticize Hooker on mainly two points. The first point is on the matter of the "disaster-clause". I present here a modified example from Leonard Kahn: a choice between saving your own city with all members of your family and friends versus another arbitrary city with a few more people living in it. Hooker does not say much about the extent of a person's obligations and priority towards family and friends. So, it is worth asking: does the theory cohere with what we know about our human nature, and would Hooker's theory and a plausible account human nature reach the same conclusion as far as this particular example is concerned? The second point focuses on the issue of the internalization condition. This comes in two varieties: one can recommend internalization of one code by everyone (absolute rule-consequentialism), on the one hand, or internalization of different codes for different groups (relative rule-consequentialism). Which one should be preferred? I will argue for nation-relative rule-consequentialism, and will do so from a consequentialist perspective. I will do this by first arguing that there exist differences in people's conventional morality – something Hooker does not seem to take into consideration to a sufficient degree. I will try to show that if we have differences in conventional morality, then the reasons for preferring national internalization of codes are stronger from a global perspective.