What is the Rule of Propinquity?

Answer 1

The world is run by those who show up.

.

Answer 2

Wiki says: Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate the most pleasure. The rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he or she looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation — specific to a case or generalized to rules.

Answer 3

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What is the Rule of Propinquity?

Answer 4

rule propinquity

Answer 5

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/y6oaR

All utilitarians consider the opposite consequences of pleasure and pain to be the basic principle of morality. Promoting pleasure and diminishing pain makes acts moral. Diminishing pleasure and increasing pain makes acts immoral. Jeremy Bentham founded such a "felicific (happiness producing) calculus" in English philosophy in order to reform both the laws and the penal institutions of England according to the principles of promoting pleasure and diminishing pain. Bentham thought that pleasures and pains could be calculated on an essentially QUANTITATIVE basis whether those pleasures and pains involved individuals or entire societies. Since he was a democrat everyone was equal. No one's pleasure or pain counted more than any other individual's pleasure or pain (if I am not mistaken other sentient/sensitive animals counted equally too; perhaps a basis for the arguments of animal rights activists). Bentham's method for calculating the pleasures and pains of ACTIONS involved (1) intensity (more intense pleasure is better; more intense pain is worse) (2) Duration [how long either the pain or pleasure lasts] (3) Certainty or Uncertainty [of pleasure or pain], (4) Propinquity (closeness at hand) or Remoteness (distance in either space or time) and (5) fecundity [pleasures or pains which spread to others], which are all quantitative considerations. He added one qualitative consideration which was (6) purity. For example the pleasure of music listening was more PURE than that of eating food because the pleasure of music listening is never followed by the pain of indigestion. In every case Bentham considers the ACTS [whether individual or governmental] and their relationship to pleasure and pain in a number of interested parties. So he is an ACT utilitarian. But when critics pointed out the difficulties in actually calculating pleasures and pains, the fact that the pleasures/pains of pigs counted equally with the pleasures/pains of human beings and, finally, that the pleasure afforded to a thief and his friends by successfully stealing a rich person's purse generated more general pleasure to a gang of pickpockets than the minor pain to 1 rich person in losing a relatively small (to him) amount of money, on Bentham's quantitative "utilitarian grounds", then J.S. Mill brought in both qualitative utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Mill argued that some pleasures were better than others [It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a satisfied pig and only Socrates knows the difference.] and that the general principle of utility [happiness] is ultimately to be employed when deciding between secondary RULES when there is a conflict. For example should I pay my debt OR use borrowed money to buy medicine for my sick child? Since 2 happiness RULES [Pay back debts; Alleviate the suffering of my child.] are in conflict then I must consider the principle of "utility/happiness" in determining which RULE to follow in the case of a "moral dilemma". That kind of RULE UTILITARIANISM is what John Stuart Mill introduced into Utilitarian Ethics in order to refute criticisms of what was being described (arguably unfairly) of Bentham's system as "morality for pigs". Paul Crump's case? Did people, in general, get more pleasure from his book than the relatives of his victim got pain from knowing he did not get executed for murder? Why did his fellow robbers not get the death penalty, but he did? Etc. Etc. I think that an ACT utilitarian might argue that Crump's death would not alleviate the pain suffered by the relative/friends of the murdered man, nor give them very much pleasure --- while his book gave a lot of people [including Billy Graham and others who argued for a commutation of his death sentence] the pleasure of thinking/knowing that criminals can be rehabilitated. I think that Rule utilitarians might disagree. Not sure. Kevin.

Answer 6

power is wielded by people who are in the room when a decision is made.