Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism is both a normative and descriptive theory. As a descriptive theory it claims that the classical model of jurisprudence doesn't reflect reality and that pragmatism in law provides a more realistic alternative.
Particularly legal pragmatism eschews the notion that right decisions can be derived from a core principle or principle. It argues for a pragmatic approach that is based on context.
What is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is a philosophical concept that emerged during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was the first fully North American philosophical movement (though it should be noted that there were also 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 inspired by a discontent with the current state of affairs in the world and the past.
In terms of what pragmatism really is, it's difficult to establish a precise definition. One of the main features that is frequently associated as pragmatism is that it is focused on results and their consequences. This is often in contrast to other philosophical traditions which have an a more theoretical approach to truth and knowing.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been acknowledged as the father of the philosophy of pragmatism. He believed that only what can be independently tested and proved by practical tests is true or real. Peirce also stressed that the only true way to understand the truth of something was to study its impact on others.
Another pragmatist who was a founding figure was John Dewey (1859-1952), who was both an educator and a philosopher. He developed a more holistic approach to pragmatism that included connections with education, society, and art and politics. He was influenced both by Peirce, and the German idealists Wilhelm von Humboldt und Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatists had a more loose definition of what is truth. This was not intended to be a form of relativism however, but rather a way to attain greater clarity and firmly-justified settled beliefs. This was achieved by combining experience with sound reasoning.
Putnam extended this neopragmatic method to be more widely described as internal Realism. This was a possible alternative to correspondence theories of truth, which dispensed with the goal of attaining an external God's eye viewpoint while retaining truth's objectivity, albeit inside a description or theory. It was an advanced version of the theories of Peirce and James.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A legal pragmatist views the law as a means to solve problems and not as a set of rules. Thus, he or she does not believe in the traditional notion of deductive certainty and focuses on context as a crucial element in decision-making. Moreover, legal pragmatists argue that the idea of fundamental principles is a misguided notion because, as a general rule they believe that any of these principles will be devalued by application. So, a pragmatic approach is superior to the traditional approach to legal decision-making.
The pragmatist view is broad and has given rise to a myriad of theories in philosophy, ethics as well as sociology, science and political theory. However, Charles Sanders Peirce deserves most of the credit for pragmatism, and his pragmatic maxim - a rule for clarifying the meaning of hypotheses by tracing their practical consequences - is its central core but the concept has since expanded significantly to encompass a variety of views. These include the view that a philosophical theory is true only if it can be used to benefit implications, the belief that knowledge is primarily a transacting with, not an expression of nature, and the idea that language is a deep bed of shared practices which cannot be fully made explicit.
view site… do not go unnoticed by critics even though they have contributed to a variety of areas of philosophy. The pragmatic pragmatists' aversion to a priori propositional knowledge has led to a powerful and influential critique of traditional analytical philosophy that has expanded beyond philosophy into a myriad of social disciplines, such as the fields of jurisprudence and political science.
However, it's difficult to classify a pragmatic 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 sources for their decisions. However an expert in the field of law may be able to argue that this model doesn't accurately reflect the actual dynamics of judicial decision-making. Consequently, it seems more appropriate to think of a pragmatist view of law as a normative theory that offers an outline of how law should be interpreted and developed.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophic tradition that regards the world and agency as inseparable. It is interpreted in many different ways, often in conflict with one another. It is often viewed as a reaction against analytic philosophy, whereas at other times, it is considered an alternative to continental thinking. It is a tradition that is growing and developing.
The pragmatists wanted to stress the importance of individual consciousness in the formation of beliefs. They also sought to overcome what they saw as the errors of a flawed philosophical tradition that had affected the work of earlier thinkers. These mistakes included Cartesianism and Nominalism, as well as a misunderstanding of the role of human reasoning.
All pragmatists distrust untested and non-experimental representations of reason. They are also wary of any argument which claims that "it works" or "we have always done it this way' is valid. These assertions could be seen as being too legalistic, uninformed rationalist, and not critical of the practices of the past by the legal pragmatist.
Contrary to the traditional notion of law as a set of deductivist principles, the pragmatist will emphasise the importance of the context of legal decision-making. It will also acknowledge the possibility of a variety of ways to describe law and that these different interpretations must be embraced. This stance, called perspectivalism, can make the legal pragmatist appear less tolerant towards precedent and previously endorsed analogies.
The legal pragmatist's perspective acknowledges that judges don't have access to a core set of rules from which they could make well-thought-out decisions in all cases. The pragmatist therefore wants to stress the importance of understanding a case before making a final decision and is willing to modify a legal rule if it is not working.
There isn't a universally agreed definition of a legal pragmaticist however, certain traits are common to the philosophical approach. This includes an emphasis on context, and a denial of any attempt to draw laws from abstract concepts that are not tested in specific cases. Furthermore, the pragmatist will recognize that the law is always changing and there will be no single correct picture of it.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Justice?
Legal pragmatism as a judicial philosophy has been lauded for its ability to bring about social change. However, it has also been criticized as a way of sidestepping legitimate philosophical and moral disagreements, by relegating them to the arena of legal decision-making. The pragmatist is not interested in relegating the philosophical debate to the realm of law. Instead, he takes a pragmatic and open-ended approach, and acknowledges that the existence of perspectives is inevitable.
The majority of legal pragmatists don't believe in a foundationalist picture of legal decision-making, and rely on traditional legal sources to establish the basis for judging current cases. They believe that cases are not necessarily adequate for providing a solid foundation to draw properly-analyzed legal conclusions. Therefore, they must be supplemented with other sources, such as previously approved analogies or concepts from precedent.
The legal pragmatist denies the idea of a set or overarching fundamental principles that can be used to make the right decisions. She believes that this would make it simpler for judges, who could then base their decisions on predetermined rules and make decisions.
In light of the skepticism and realism that characterizes neo-pragmatism, many legal pragmatists have adopted a more deflationist approach to the concept of truth. They tend to argue, by looking at the way in which concepts are applied and describing its function, and establishing criteria that can be used to establish that a certain concept is useful that this is the standard that philosophers can reasonably be expecting from a truth theory.
Other pragmatists have adopted a more broad view of truth, which they have called an objective standard for asserting and questioning. This view combines elements of the pragmatist tradition with classical realist and Idealist philosophy. It is also in line with the larger pragmatic tradition, which views truth as an objective standard for assertion and inquiry and not just a standard of justification or warranted affirmability (or its derivatives). This holistic perspective of truth is called an "instrumental theory of truth" since it seeks to define truth in terms of the purposes and values that guide one's involvement with reality.