Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism can be characterized as both a descriptive and normative theory. As a descriptive theory, it affirms that the conventional model of jurisprudence doesn't fit reality, and that legal pragmatism provides a better alternative.
Legal pragmatism in particular it rejects the idea that correct decisions can simply be derived from a fundamental principle. It advocates a pragmatic, context-based approach.
What is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is a philosophy that was developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was the first truly North American philosophical movement (though it is important to note that there were followers of the contemporaneously developing existentialism who were also referred to as "pragmatists"). The pragmaticists, as with many other major philosophical movements throughout time, were partly inspired by dissatisfaction over the situation in the world and the past.
In terms of what pragmatism really means, it is a challenge to pin down a concrete definition. Pragmatism is often associated with its focus on outcomes and results. This is frequently contrasted with other philosophical traditions that take an a more theoretical approach to truth and knowing.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been credited as the founder of the concept of pragmatism in philosophy. He believed that only things that can be independently tested and proved through practical experiments is true or real. Additionally, Peirce emphasized that the only way to understand the significance of something was to study its effect on other things.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 until 1952, was another founder pragmatist. He developed an approach that was more holistic to pragmatism. This included connections with art, education, society, as well as politics. He was influenced by Peirce and also drew inspiration from the German idealist philosophers Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatists had a looser definition of what constitutes truth. This was not intended to be a realism however, but rather a way to achieve greater clarity and solidly-substantiated settled beliefs. This was achieved by combining practical experience with logical reasoning.
The neo-pragmatic concept was later extended by Putnam to be defined as internal realism. This was an alternative to the correspondence theory of truth which did not aim to create an external God's eye point of view but retained the objective nature of truth within a description or theory. It was a similar approach to the ideas of Peirce James, and Dewey, but with more sophisticated formulation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A pragmatist in the field of law views law as a resolving process and not a set of predetermined rules. He or she does not believe in a classical view of deductive certainty, and instead focuses on the role of context in decision-making. Moreover, legal pragmatists argue that the idea of fundamental principles is a misguided notion because, as a general rule the principles that are based on them will be discarded by the practical experience. So, a pragmatic approach is superior to a traditional view of the process of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist view is broad and has led to the development of numerous theories that span ethics, science, philosophy political theory, sociology and even politics. Although Charles Sanders Peirce deserves most of the credit for pragmatism and his pragmatism-based maxim - a rule for clarifying the meaning of hypotheses by the practical consequences they have - is its central core however, the concept has since been expanded to cover a broad range of views. The doctrine has expanded to encompass a broad range of opinions and beliefs, including the notion that a philosophy theory only valid if it's useful, and that knowledge is more than just an abstract representation of the world.
While the pragmatics have contributed to a variety of areas of philosophy, they are not without critics. The pragmatists rejecting the concept of a priori propositional knowledge has resulted in a ferocious, influential critique of analytical philosophy. The critique has travelled far beyond philosophy to diverse social disciplines, including the fields of jurisprudence, political science, and a variety of other social sciences.
However, it is difficult to categorize a pragmatist view of the law as a descriptive theory. Judges tend to act as if they are following an empiricist logic that is based on precedent as well as traditional legal materials to make their decisions. A legal pragmatist, however might claim that this model does not reflect the real-time dynamics of judicial decisions. Therefore, it is more appropriate to view the law in a pragmatist perspective as a normative theory that provides an outline of how law should be interpreted and developed.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that understands the knowledge of the world as inseparable from agency within it. It has been interpreted in a variety of different ways, usually in opposition to one another. It is sometimes seen as a response to analytic philosophy, whereas at other times, it is considered an alternative to continental thinking. It is an evolving tradition that is and evolving.
The pragmatists wanted to stress the importance of experience and individual consciousness in forming beliefs. They also wanted to correct what they considered to be the mistakes of a dated philosophical tradition that had altered the work of earlier thinkers. These errors included Cartesianism and Nominalism, and an ignorance of the importance of human reasoning.
All pragmatists distrust non-tested and untested images of reason. They will therefore be cautious of any argument that claims that "it works" or "we have always done this way' are legitimate. These statements could be interpreted as being too legalistic, naively rationality and uncritical of the previous practices by the legal pragmatic.
In contrast to the conventional idea of law as a system of deductivist principles, the pragmatist will emphasise the importance of context in legal decision-making. They will also recognize the fact that there are many ways to define law, and that these variations should be taken into consideration. The perspective of perspectivalism may make the legal pragmatic appear less deferential to precedents and accepted analogies.
One of the most important aspects of the legal pragmatist view is the recognition that judges do not have access to a set of core rules from which they can make properly argued decisions in every case. The pragmatist is therefore keen to stress the importance of knowing the facts before making a final decision, and is willing to modify a legal rule when it isn't working.
There is no universally agreed picture of a legal pragmaticist however certain traits are common to the philosophical stance. This is a focus on context, and a rejection to any attempt to derive laws from abstract principles that are not directly testable in specific instances. The pragmaticist also recognizes that the law is constantly evolving and there can't be a single correct picture.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Justice?
As a judicial theory legal pragmatism has been lauded as a means to bring about social changes. It has been criticized for relegating legitimate philosophical and moral disagreements to the realm of legal decision-making. The pragmatist, however, does not want to confine philosophical debate to the realm of the law, but instead adopts an approach that is pragmatic in these disputes, which insists on the importance of an open-ended approach to knowledge and a willingness to acknowledge that perspectives are inevitable.
The majority of legal pragmatists do not accept the idea of a foundationalist approach to legal decision-making and instead rely on traditional legal materials to judge current cases. They believe that the cases aren't up to the task of providing a solid enough basis for deducing properly analyzed legal conclusions. Therefore, they must be supplemented with other sources, including previously approved analogies or concepts from precedent.
The legal pragmatist likewise rejects the idea that correct decisions can be deduced from a set of fundamental principles and argues that such a view could make it too easy for judges to base their decisions on predetermined "rules." Instead she favors a method that recognizes the omnipotent influence of context.
Many legal pragmatists, due to the skepticism typical of neopragmatism, and its anti-realism, have taken an even more deflationist approach to the concept of truth. By focusing on the way a concept is utilized in its context, describing its function and establishing criteria for recognizing that a concept has that purpose, they've been able to suggest that this may be all philosophers could reasonably expect from a theory of truth.
helpful resources have adopted a more broad approach to truth and have referred to it as an objective standard for asserting and questioning. This view combines features of pragmatism and those of the classical idealist and realist philosophy, and is in line with the larger pragmatic tradition that views truth as a norm for assertion and inquiry, not an arbitrary standard for justification or justified assertion (or any of its derivatives). This more holistic concept of truth is known as an "instrumental" theory of truth, as it is a search for truth to be defined by the goals and values that guide the way a person interacts with the world.