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 accurate and that legal pragmatics is a better option.
Legal pragmatism, specifically is opposed to the idea that the right decision can be determined by a core principle. It argues for a pragmatic and contextual approach.
What is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is a philosophical concept that emerged during the latter part of the nineteenth and early 20th centuries. It was the first truly North American philosophical movement (though it is worth noting that there were a few followers of the contemporaneously developing existentialism who were also known as "pragmatists"). The pragmaticists, like many other major philosophical movements throughout time, were partly inspired by dissatisfaction over the conditions of the world as well as the past.
In terms of what pragmatism really means, it is difficult to pin down a concrete definition. One of the major characteristics that is often identified as pragmatism is that it focuses on the results and consequences. This is often in contrast to other philosophical traditions that have a more theoretic approach to truth and knowledge.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been acknowledged as the father of the philosophy of pragmatism. He argued that only what could be independently tested and proved through practical experiments was considered real or true. Additionally, Peirce emphasized that the only way to understand the significance of something was to determine its effects on other things.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 to 1952, was a second founding pragmatist. He created a more comprehensive approach to pragmatism that included connections to education, society art, politics, and. He was influenced both by Peirce and by the German idealists Wilhelm von Humboldt und Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatists also had a more loosely defined approach to what constitutes the truth. It was not intended to be a position of relativity, but rather an attempt to attain a higher level of clarity and firmly justified established beliefs. This was achieved by combining practical experience with solid reasoning.
Putnam expanded this neopragmatic approach to be described more broadly as internal realists. This was a different approach to the correspondence theory of truth which did not seek to achieve an external God's-eye viewpoint, but maintained the objectivity of truth within a theory or description. It was similar to the ideas of Peirce, James and Dewey however, it was an improved formulation.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Decision-Making?
A pragmatist in the field of law views law as a resolving process and not a set of predetermined rules. They reject a classical 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 because generally they believe that any of these principles will be outgrown by practice. A pragmatic view is superior to a classical approach to legal decision-making.
The pragmatist perspective is extremely broad and has given rise to a myriad of theories in ethics, philosophy, science, sociology, and political theory. Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with being the most pragmatist. His pragmatic principle that aims to clarify the meaning of hypotheses through their practical implications, is the basis of its. However the doctrine's scope has expanded considerably in recent years, covering a wide variety of views. The doctrine has been expanded to include a wide range of perspectives and beliefs, including the notion that a philosophy theory is only true if it is useful, and that knowledge is more than a representation of the world.
The pragmatists do not go unnoticed by critics despite their contributions to many areas of philosophy. The pragmatists' refusal to accept a priori propositional knowlege has resulted in a powerful critical and influential critique of analytical philosophy. This critique has reverberated far beyond philosophy into various social disciplines like political science, jurisprudence and a host of other social sciences.
However, it is difficult to classify a pragmatic view of the law as a descriptive theory. Judges tend to act as if they are following an empiricist logical framework that is based on precedent and traditional legal materials for their decisions. A legal pragmatist, may claim that this model does not accurately reflect the real dynamics of judicial decisions. It is more appropriate to see a pragmatic approach to law as a normative model that provides guidelines on how law should develop and be applied.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophy that views the knowledge of the world as inseparable from the agency within it. It has drawn a wide and often contrary range of interpretations. It is often regarded as a response to analytic philosophy whereas at other times, it is regarded as a different approach to continental thought. It is a tradition that is growing and evolving.
The pragmatists were keen to emphasise the value of experiences and pragmatic the importance of the individual's own mind in the formation of beliefs. They also sought to correct what they believed to be the mistakes of a dated philosophical tradition that had affected the work of earlier thinkers. These mistakes included Cartesianism Nominalism and a misunderstanding of the importance of human reason.
All pragmatists are skeptical about unquestioned and non-experimental pictures of reasoning. They will be suspicious of any argument which claims that "it works" or "we have always done things this way" are true. These assertions could be seen as being too legalistic, uninformed rationalism and uncritical of practices of the past by the legal pragmatic.
Contrary to the classical notion of law as an unwritten set of rules The pragmaticist emphasizes the importance of context when making legal decisions. They will also recognize the possibility of a variety of ways to describe law and that the various interpretations should be taken into consideration. This perspective, referred to as perspectivalism, can make the legal pragmatic appear less reliant to precedents and accepted analogies.
The legal pragmatist's perspective recognizes that judges do not have access to a basic set of fundamentals from which they could make well-considered decisions in all cases. The pragmatist is keen to emphasize the importance of understanding the case before deciding and to be willing to change or rescind a law when it proves unworkable.
There isn't a universally agreed picture of a legal pragmaticist however certain traits tend to characterise the philosophical stance. This includes an emphasis on the context, and a reluctance to any attempt to derive laws from abstract principles that are not tested in specific cases. The pragmatist also recognizes that the law is constantly evolving and there isn't only one correct view.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
As a judicial theory legal pragmatism has been lauded as a means of bringing about social changes. It has also been criticized for relegating legitimate moral and philosophical disagreements to legal decision-making. The pragmatic does not want to confine philosophical debate to the realm of the law and instead takes an approach that is pragmatic to these disagreements, which stresses contextual sensitivity, the importance of an open-ended approach to knowledge and the willingness to accept that the existence of perspectives is inevitable.
Most legal pragmatists reject the foundationalist view of legal decision-making and rely upon traditional legal sources to serve as the basis for judging present cases. They believe that the cases alone are not enough to provide a solid basis to properly analyze legal conclusions. Therefore, they have to add additional sources such as analogies or the principles drawn from precedent.
The legal pragmatist denies the idea of a set or overarching fundamental principles that could be used to determine correct decisions. She argues that this would make it easy for judges, who could base their decisions on rules that have been established and make decisions.
In light of the skepticism and anti-realism that characterize the neo-pragmatists, many have adopted a more deflationist position toward the notion of truth. They tend to argue, focussing on the way in which a concept is applied, describing its purpose, and establishing standards that can be used to determine if a concept is useful, that this could be the standard that philosophers can reasonably expect from the truth theory.
Some pragmatists have taken more expansive views of truth, which they refer to as an objective standard for assertions and inquiries. This approach combines the characteristics of pragmatism with those of the classic idealist and realist philosophical systems, and is in keeping with the more broad pragmatic tradition that sees truth as a standard for assertion and inquiry rather than simply a normative standard to justify or justified assertion (or any of its derivatives). This more holistic view of truth is called an "instrumental" theory of truth because it is a search for truth to be defined in terms of the aims and values that determine a person's engagement with the world.