Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism is both a normative and descriptive theory. As a description theory it argues that the classical view of jurisprudence is not correct and that legal Pragmatism is a better choice.
Legal pragmatism, specifically, rejects the notion that the right decision can be derived from a fundamental principle. Instead it promotes a pragmatic approach that is based on context and the process of experimentation.
What is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is a philosophy that developed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was the first fully North American philosophical movement (though it is important to note that there were a few followers of the existentialism movement that was developing at the time who were also known as "pragmatists"). Like several other major movements in the history of philosophy the pragmaticists were influenced by a discontent with the current state of affairs in the world and in the past.
It is a challenge to give an exact definition of pragmatism. One of the major characteristics that are often associated with pragmatism is the fact that it focuses on the results and their consequences. This is sometimes contrasted with other philosophical traditions that have more of a theoretical approach to truth and knowledge.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been credited as the founder of the philosophy of pragmatism. Peirce believed that only what could be independently verified and proved through practical tests was believed to be true. Peirce also emphasized that the only true way to understand the truth of something was to study its effects on others.
Another pragmatist who was a founding figure was John Dewey (1859-1952), who was a teacher and philosopher. He developed an approach that was more holistic to pragmatism, which included connections with education, society, and art as well as politics. He was influenced by Peirce, and the German idealists Wilhelm von Humboldt und Friedrich Hegel.
related had a looser definition of what is truth. This was not meant to be a realism position, but rather an attempt to attain a higher degree of clarity and well-justified established beliefs. This was achieved by a combination of practical knowledge and solid reasoning.
Putnam developed this neopragmatic view to be more broadly described as internal Realism. This was an alternative to correspondence theories of truth that did away with the goal of attaining an external God's eye point of view while retaining the objective nature of truth, although within a theory or description. It was similar to the ideas of Peirce James and Dewey however, it was more sophisticated formulation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A pragmatist who is a lawyer sees law as a resolving process and not a set of predetermined rules. Therefore, he dismisses the conventional notion of deductive certainty, and instead emphasizes the importance of context in making decisions. Legal pragmatists also contend that the idea of fundamental principles is a misguided idea since, in general, these principles will be disproved by the actual application. So, a pragmatic approach is superior to the classical conception of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist view is broad and has given rise to a variety of theories in philosophy, ethics as well as sociology, science and political theory. 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 tracing their practical consequences is the core of the doctrine, the concept has expanded to encompass a variety of perspectives. The doctrine has been expanded to encompass a variety of views which include the belief that a philosophy theory only true if it is useful, and that knowledge is more than just a representation of the world.
The pragmatists do not go unnoticed by critics even though they have contributed to a variety of areas of philosophy. The pragmatists' rejection of a priori propositional knowlege has led to a powerful, influential critique of analytical philosophy. This critique has reverberated across the entire field of philosophy to a variety social disciplines including the fields of jurisprudence, political science, and a number of other social sciences.
However, it's difficult to classify a pragmatist legal theory as a descriptive theory. Most judges act as if they follow an empiricist logical framework that is based on precedent as well as traditional legal sources for their decisions. A legal pragmatist might claim that this model does not capture the true dynamics of judicial decisions. It is more appropriate to think of a pragmatist approach to law as a normative model that provides an outline of how law should evolve and be applied.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophic tradition that views knowledge of the world and agency as inseparable. It has attracted a wide and often contradictory range of interpretations. It is often seen as a reaction against analytic philosophy, whereas at other times it is seen as an alternative to continental thinking. It is a growing and evolving tradition.
The pragmatists were keen to emphasize the importance of experience and the significance of the individual's own consciousness in the formation of beliefs. They also wanted to rectify what they perceived as the errors of a flawed philosophical tradition that had altered the work of earlier philosophers. These errors included Cartesianism, Nominalism, and a misunderstood view of the role of human reason.
All pragmatists are skeptical about non-experimental and unquestioned images of reason. They will therefore be wary of any argument that claims that "it works" or "we have always done it this way' is valid. For the lawyer, these statements can be seen as being too legalistic, naively rationalist, and insensitive to the past practice.
In contrast to the conventional notion of law as a set 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 describe law, and that the various interpretations should be taken into consideration. This perspective, referred to as perspectivalism, may make the legal pragmatic appear less deferential to precedents and previously accepted analogies.
A key feature of the legal pragmatist perspective is its recognition that judges are not privy to a set or principles from which they can make properly argued decisions in every case. The pragmatist will therefore be keen to stress the importance of understanding a case before making a decision and will be willing to modify a legal rule if it is not working.
Although there isn't an agreed picture of what a legal pragmatist should look like, there are certain features that define this stance on philosophy. They include a focus on context and the rejection of any attempt to deduce law from abstract principles that are not directly tested in a specific case. The pragmatic also recognizes that the law is constantly evolving and there isn't a single correct picture.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
Legal pragmatism as a judicial philosophy has been lauded for its ability to effect social changes. It has been criticized for delegating legitimate moral and philosophical disagreements to legal decision-making. The pragmatist is not interested in relegating the philosophical debate to the legal realm. Instead, he prefers an open and pragmatic approach, and recognizes that the existence of perspectives is inevitable.
Most legal pragmatists reject the notion of foundational legal decision-making, and instead, rely on conventional legal material to judge current cases. They take the view that the cases aren't adequate for providing a solid enough basis to draw properly-analyzed legal conclusions. They therefore need to be supplemented by other sources, like previously recognized analogies or principles from precedent.
The legal pragmatist also disapproves of the idea that good decisions can be deduced from an overarching set of fundamental principles, arguing that such a scenario makes it too easy for judges to base their decisions on predetermined "rules." Instead she favors a method that recognizes the irresistible influence of context.
In light of the skepticism and realism that characterizes the neo-pragmatists, many have taken a more deflationist position toward the concept of truth. By focusing on how a concept is utilized and describing its purpose, and establishing criteria for recognizing that a concept has that purpose, they have tended to argue that this may be the only thing philosophers can expect from a theory of truth.
Other pragmatists, however, have taken a more expansive view of truth and have referred to it as an objective standard for asserting and questioning. This perspective combines aspects of pragmatism and those of the classic idealist and realist philosophy, and is in line with the broader pragmatic tradition that regards truth as a standard for assertion and inquiry, not an arbitrary standard for justification or warranted assertion (or any of its variants). This more holistic concept of truth is known as an "instrumental" theory of truth, because it seeks to define truth purely by reference to the goals and values that determine an individual's interaction with the world.