Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism is both a descriptive and normative theory. As a description theory, it argues that the classical conception of jurisprudence isn't correct and that legal pragmatics is a better option.
Particularly legal pragmatism eschews the idea that correct decisions can be deduced from a core principle or set of principles. It argues for a pragmatic approach that is based on context.
What is Pragmatism?
The pragmatism philosophy emerged in the late 19th and the early 20th centuries. It was the first truly North American philosophical movement (though it is important to note that there were followers of the later-developing existentialism who were also labeled "pragmatists"). Like many other major movements in the history of philosophy, the pragmaticists were inspired by a discontent with the current state of affairs in the world and the past.
It is difficult to give a precise definition of the term "pragmatism. Pragmatism is typically associated with its focus on results and outcomes. This is frequently contrasted with other philosophical traditions which have a more theoretic 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 what can be independently tested and proved by practical tests is true or authentic. Peirce also emphasized that the only real method to comprehend something was to examine its effects on others.
Another pragmatist who was a founding figure was John Dewey (1859-1952), who was both an educator and philosopher. He developed an approach that was more holistic to pragmatism that included connections with society, education and art as well as politics. He was influenced both by Peirce, and the German idealists Wilhelm von Humboldt und Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatists had a looser definition of what was truth. This was not intended to be a relativist position however, rather a way to attain a higher level of clarity and solidly accepted beliefs. This was achieved by an amalgamation of practical knowledge and solid reasoning.
This neo-pragmatic approach was later expanded by Putnam to be more broadly defined as internal realism. This was a different approach to correspondence theories of truth that did away with the goal of attaining an external God's-eye point of view while retaining the objectivity of truth, but within a description or theory. It was a similar idea to the theories of Peirce, James and Dewey however with a more sophisticated formulation.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Decision-Making?
A legal pragmatist views the law as a means to resolve problems and not as a set of rules. He or she rejects the traditional view of deductive certainty, and instead focuses on the role of context in decision-making. Legal pragmatists also argue that the notion of foundational principles is misguided since, in general, these principles will be discarded by actual practice. A pragmatic view is superior to a traditional view of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist viewpoint is broad and has led to the development of various theories that include those of philosophy, science, ethics, political theory, sociology and even politics. Although Charles Sanders Peirce deserves most of the credit for pragmatism, and his pragmatic maxim - a rule for clarifying the meaning of hypotheses by exploring their practical implications - is the foundation of the doctrine however, the scope of the doctrine has expanded to cover a broad range of views. This includes the belief that a philosophical theory is true if and only if it has practical consequences, the view that knowledge is primarily a transacting with rather than a representation of nature, and the idea that articulate language rests on a deep bed of shared practices that can't be fully expressed.
The pragmatists do not go unnoticed by critics in spite of their contributions to many areas of philosophy. The the pragmatists' refusal to accept a priori propositional knowledge has led to a powerful and influential critique of traditional analytical philosophy, which has extended beyond philosophy to a range of social disciplines, including the fields of jurisprudence and political science.
It is still difficult to classify the pragmatist view to law as a description theory. The majority of judges behave as if they are following a logical empiricist framework that relies on precedent and traditional legal sources for their decisions. A legal pragmatist might claim that this model does not capture the true dynamic of judicial decisions. Thus, it's more appropriate to view the law from a pragmatic perspective as a normative theory that offers an outline of how law should be developed and interpreted.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that posits knowledge of the world and agency as inseparable. It has been interpreted in a variety of different ways, and often in opposition to one another. It is often seen as a reaction to analytic philosophy whereas at other times, it is viewed as a counter-point to continental thinking. It is a rapidly evolving tradition.
The pragmatists wanted to emphasise the value of experience and the importance of the individual's own consciousness in the formation of belief. They also wanted to correct what they believed as the flaws of a philosophical tradition that was outdated that had distorted earlier thinkers' work. These errors included Cartesianism, Nominalism, and a misunderstood of the role of human reason.
All pragmatists are skeptical of non-tested and untested images of reasoning. They are suspicious of any argument which claims that "it works" or "we have always done things this way" are valid. These assertions could be seen as being too legalistic, naive rationalism and uncritical of practices of the past by the legal pragmatist.
In contrast to the conventional picture of law as a system of deductivist principles, the pragmatist will emphasise the importance of the context of legal decision-making. It will also recognize the possibility of a variety of ways to describe law and that the various interpretations should be embraced. This approach, referred to as perspectivalism, can make the legal pragmatist appear less deferential toward precedent and prior endorsed analogies.
A major aspect of the legal pragmatist view is its recognition that judges do not have access to a set or rules from which they can make properly argued decisions in every case. The pragmatist will thus be keen to emphasize the importance of knowing the facts before deciding and to be willing to change or even omit a rule of law when it proves unworkable.
There is no agreed definition of what a legal pragmatist should be There are some characteristics that tend to define this stance on philosophy. They include a focus on context and a rejection of any attempt to derive laws from abstract concepts that cannot be tested in a specific case. Additionally, the pragmatic will recognize that the law is continuously changing and that there can be no one correct interpretation of it.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
Legal Pragmatism as a philosophy of justice has been lauded for its ability to bring about social changes. It has been criticized for delegating legitimate moral and philosophical disagreements to legal decision-making. The pragmatic is not interested in relegating philosophical debate to the law, but instead adopts an approach that is pragmatic in these disagreements, which stresses the importance of an open-ended approach to learning, and the willingness to accept that the existence of perspectives is inevitable.
The majority of legal pragmatists do not accept the foundationalist view of legal decision-making, and instead rely on the traditional legal sources to decide current cases. They believe that the cases aren't adequate for providing a firm enough foundation to draw properly-analyzed legal conclusions and therefore must be supplemented by other sources, such as previously endorsed analogies or principles from precedent.
The legal pragmatist also rejects the notion that right decisions can be derived from a set of fundamental principles in the belief that such a picture would make judges unable to rest their decisions on predetermined "rules." Instead she favors a method that recognizes the inexorable influence of the context.
In light of the skepticism and realism that characterize neo-pragmatism, many legal pragmatists have adopted an increasingly deflationist view of the notion of truth. By focusing on how a concept is used and describing its purpose, and establishing criteria to recognize the concept's purpose, they have tended to argue that this may be all philosophers could reasonably expect from a theory of truth.
Other pragmatists, however, have taken a more expansive approach to truth, which they have called an objective standard for asserting and questioning. additional hints combines elements from pragmatism and classical realist and Idealist philosophy. It is also in line with the larger pragmatic tradition, which regards truth as an objective standard of assertion and inquiry, and not merely a standard for justification or warranted affirmability (or its derivatives). This holistic view of truth has been described as an "instrumental theory of truth" because it seeks only to define truth in terms of the goals and values that guide our engagement with reality.