Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism can be described as a normative and descriptive theory. As a description theory it asserts that the traditional view of jurisprudence is not accurate and that legal pragmatics is a better option.
Legal pragmatism in particular is opposed to the idea that the right decision can be deduced by some core principle. Instead it promotes a pragmatic approach that is based on context and experimentation.
What is Pragmatism?
The philosophy of pragmatism was born in the latter half of 19th and the early 20th century. It was the first North American philosophical movement. (It must be noted, however, that some followers of existentialism were also called "pragmatists") The pragmaticists, as with many other major philosophical movements throughout time were in part influenced by dissatisfaction over the state of the world and the past.
In terms of what pragmatism really means, it is a challenge to establish a precise definition. Pragmatism is usually associated with its focus on results and outcomes. This is often contrasted to other philosophical traditions which have an a more theoretical approach to truth and knowing.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been acknowledged as the originator of the philosophy of pragmatism. He believed that only what can be independently tested and proved through practical experiments is true or authentic. Furthermore, Peirce emphasized that the only way to understand the significance of something was to find its effect on other things.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 to 1952, was a second founding pragmatist. He developed a more holistic approach to pragmatism that included connections to education, society, and art as well as politics. He was inspired by Peirce and also drew inspiration from the German idealist philosophers Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatics also had a more flexible view of what constitutes truth. It was not intended to be a realism position however, rather a way to attain a higher level of clarity and solidly established beliefs. This was achieved through a combination of practical knowledge and solid reasoning.
This neo-pragmatic approach was later expanded by Putnam to be defined as internal Realism. This was a different approach to correspondence theories of truth that did away with the aim of achieving an external God's eye point of view while retaining the objective nature of truth, although within a description or theory. It was a more sophisticated version of the theories of Peirce and James.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A pragmatist in the field of law views law as a resolving process, not a set of predetermined rules. This is why he dismisses the conventional notion of deductive certainty and focuses on the importance of context in making decisions. Furthermore, legal pragmatists believe that the notion of foundational principles is misguided since generally, any such principles would be discarded by the practical experience. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is superior to a classical approach to legal decision-making.
The pragmatist perspective is broad and has inspired many different theories that span philosophy, science, ethics, political theory, sociology and even politics. Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with having the greatest pragmatism. His pragmatic principle is a principle that clarifies the meaning of hypotheses by examining their practical implications, is its core. However the doctrine's scope has expanded significantly over time, covering a wide variety of views. This includes the belief that the truth of a philosophical theory is if and only if it has practical implications, the belief that knowledge is primarily a transacting with, not an expression of nature, and the notion that language is a deep bed of shared practices that cannot be fully formulated.
Although the pragmatics have contributed to many areas of philosophy, they aren't without their critics. The pragmatists' refusal to accept the notion of a priori knowledge has resulted in a powerful and influential critique of analytical philosophy. The critique has travelled far beyond philosophy into a variety social disciplines including the fields of jurisprudence, political science, and a variety of other social sciences.
It isn't easy to classify the pragmatist view to law as a description theory. Most judges make their decisions that are based on a logical and empirical framework, which is heavily based on precedents and traditional legal documents. However an attorney pragmatist could consider that this model does not adequately capture the real dynamics of judicial decision-making. Thus, it's more appropriate to view the law in a pragmatist perspective as a normative theory that offers a guideline for how law should be interpreted and developed.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophy that views knowledge of the world as inseparable from the agency within it. It has drawn a wide and sometimes contradictory variety of interpretations. It is often seen as a reaction to analytic philosophy, whereas at other times, it is seen as an alternative to continental thinking. It is an evolving tradition that is and evolving.
The pragmatists sought to stress the importance of personal experience and consciousness in the formation of beliefs. They also wanted to rectify what they perceived as the flaws of a flawed philosophical tradition that had affected the work of earlier thinkers. These errors included Cartesianism as well as Nominalism, as well as a misunderstanding of the role of human reasoning.
All pragmatists are skeptical of untested and non-experimental representations of reason. They are also cautious of any argument that asserts that 'it works' or 'we have always done it this way' is valid. For the lawyer, these assertions can be interpreted as being too legalistic, naively rationalist, and not critical of the previous practice.
Contrary to the traditional notion of law as an unwritten set of rules, the pragmatist stresses the importance of context when making legal decisions. They will also recognize that there are many ways to describe the law and that this diversity should be respected. This perspective, called perspectivalism, can make the legal pragmatic appear less deferential to precedent and previously accepted analogies.
One of the most important aspects of the legal pragmatist view is its recognition that judges have no access to a set of core principles that they can use to make well-argued decisions in all cases. The pragmatist will therefore be keen to emphasize the importance of understanding a case before making a final decision and is willing to modify a legal rule when it isn't working.
There isn't a universally agreed concept of a pragmatic lawyer however, certain traits are characteristic of the philosophical approach. They include a focus on context and a rejection of any attempt to draw laws from abstract concepts that are not tested directly in a specific instance. In addition, the pragmatist will realize that the law is always changing and that there can be no one right picture of it.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Justice?
As a theory of judicial procedure, legal pragmatics has been praised as a way of bringing about social changes. However, it is also criticized as a way of sidestepping legitimate moral and philosophical disputes by placing them in the realm of legal decision-making. The pragmatist is not interested in relegating philosophical debates to the legal realm. Instead, he prefers an open-ended and pragmatic approach, and recognizes that the existence of perspectives is inevitable.
Most legal pragmatists reject the foundationalist view of legal decision-making, and instead rely on traditional legal material to judge current cases. They take the view that cases are not necessarily adequate for providing a solid enough basis for analyzing properly legal conclusions. They therefore need to be supplemented with other sources, including previously endorsed analogies or principles from precedent.
The legal pragmatist denies the notion of a set of fundamental principles that can be used to make correct decisions. She argues that this would make it simpler for judges, who could then base their decisions on rules that have been established in order to make their decisions.
In light of the doubt and realism that characterizes neo-pragmatism, many legal pragmatists have taken a more deflationist approach to the concept of truth. By focusing on how a concept is utilized, describing its function, and establishing criteria for recognizing that a concept performs that function, they have generally argued that this is the only thing philosophers can expect from a theory of truth.
Certain pragmatists have taken on more expansive views of truth, referring to it as an objective norm for inquiries and assertions. additional resources combines elements from pragmatism and classical realist and Idealist philosophical theories. It is also in line with the more pragmatic tradition, which regards truth as an objective standard of inquiry and assertion, not just a standard of justification or warranted affirmability (or its derivatives). This more holistic conception of truth is referred to as an "instrumental" theory of truth because it seeks to define truth purely by the goals and values that determine a person's engagement with the world.