Pragmatism is both a descriptive and normative theory. As a theory of descriptive nature, it affirms that the conventional model of jurisprudence doesn't reflect reality and that pragmatism in law provides a more realistic alternative.
Legal pragmatism in particular it rejects the idea that correct decisions can simply be determined by a core principle. It argues for a pragmatic and contextual approach.
What is Pragmatism?
The philosophy of pragmatism emerged in the latter half of 19th and the early 20th centuries. It was the first truly North American philosophical movement (though it is worth noting that there were also followers of the existentialism movement that was developing at the time who were also referred to as "pragmatists"). As with other major movements in the history of philosophy, the pragmaticists were inspired by a discontent with the state of things in the world and in the past.
It is difficult to give a precise definition of the term "pragmatism. One of the primary characteristics that are often associated with pragmatism is the fact that it is focused on results and their consequences. This is often in contrast with other philosophical traditions that take a more theoretical approach to truth and knowledge.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been acknowledged as the originator of pragmatism in philosophy. He argued that only what could be independently verified and proved through practical experiments was deemed to be real or true. Peirce also emphasized that the only real method to comprehend the truth of something was to study the effects it had on other people.
Another founding pragmatist was John Dewey (1859-1952), who was both an educator and a philosopher. He created a more comprehensive approach to pragmatism that included connections to education, society, art, and politics. He was inspired by Peirce and also took inspiration from the German idealist philosophers Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatics also had a loosely defined approach to what constitutes truth. It was not intended to be a position of relativity but rather an attempt to attain a higher level of clarity and solidly accepted beliefs. This was achieved by combining practical experience with solid reasoning.
The neo-pragmatic method was later extended by Putnam to be more broadly defined as internal realism. This was a different approach to the correspondence theory of truth which did not aim to attain an external God's-eye point of view but retained the objective nature of truth within a theory or description. It was a similar idea to the ideas of Peirce, James, and Dewey however with more sophisticated formulation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A pragmatist in the field of law views law as a process of problem-solving, not a set of predetermined rules. They reject a classical view of deductive certainty and instead emphasizes the importance of context when making decisions. Furthermore, legal pragmatists believe that the idea of foundational principles is misguided because, as a general rule, any such principles would be outgrown by practical experience. A pragmatic view is superior to a classical approach to legal decision-making.
The pragmatist outlook is very broad and has given rise to a variety of theories in philosophy, ethics, science, sociology, and political theory. Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with the most pragmatism. His pragmatic principle that aims to clarify the meaning of hypotheses by examining their practical implications, is its core. However the scope of the doctrine has grown significantly over time, covering many different perspectives. These include the view that the philosophical theory is valid if and only if it has practical effects, the notion that knowledge is primarily a transacting with rather than an expression of nature, and the idea that articulate language rests on the foundation of shared practices that cannot be fully formulated.
While the pragmatists have contributed to numerous areas of philosophy, they are not without their critics. The the pragmatists' refusal to accept the concept of a priori propositional knowledge has led to an influential and effective critique of traditional analytical philosophy, which has extended beyond philosophy into a myriad of social disciplines, including the study of jurisprudence as well as political science.
However, it's difficult to classify a pragmatic legal theory as a descriptive theory. The majority of judges behave as if they follow a logical empiricist framework that is based on precedent as well as traditional legal sources for their decisions. However an attorney pragmatist could well argue that this model does not adequately capture the real dynamics of judicial decision-making. It is more logical to think of a pragmatist approach to law as a normative model which provides a guideline on how law should develop and be interpreted.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophic tradition that regards knowledge of the world and agency as integral. It has attracted a wide and sometimes contradictory variety of interpretations. It is often viewed as a reaction to analytic philosophy, but at other times, it is regarded as an alternative to continental thinking. It is an emerging tradition that is and growing.
The pragmatists were keen to stress the importance of experiences and the importance of the individual's own consciousness in the formation of belief. They also wanted to correct what they considered to be the mistakes of a dated philosophical tradition that had affected the work of earlier thinkers. These mistakes included Cartesianism Nominalism, and a misunderstood view of the human role. reason.
All pragmatists are skeptical about non-experimental and unquestioned images of reasoning. They will be suspicious of any argument that claims that "it works" or "we have always done things this way" are true. For the pragmatist in the field of law, these assertions can be interpreted as being too legalistic, naively rationalist and not critical of the previous practices.
Contrary to the traditional conception of law as an unwritten set of rules the pragmaticist emphasizes the importance of context when making legal decisions. It will also acknowledge the fact that there are many ways to describe law and that these different interpretations must be respected. This perspective, called perspectivalism, can make the legal pragmatic appear less reliant to precedent and previously accepted analogies.
A key feature of the legal pragmatist perspective is that it recognizes that judges have no access to a set or principles that they can use to make logically argued decisions in every case. The pragmatist is therefore keen to stress the importance of understanding a case before making a decision and is willing to modify a legal rule if it is not working.
Although there isn't an accepted definition of what a legal pragmatist should be, there are certain features which tend to characterise this stance on philosophy. These include an emphasis on context and a rejection of any attempt to derive law from abstract principles that are not directly tested in a specific case. The pragmatist also recognizes that law is constantly changing and there isn't one correct interpretation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Justice?
As a theory of judicial procedure, legal pragmatism has been lauded as a method of bringing about social change. However, it has also been criticized as an approach to avoiding legitimate philosophical and moral disputes by relegating them to the arena of legal decision-making. The pragmatic does not believe in relegating philosophical debates to the legal realm. Instead, he takes a pragmatic and open-ended approach, and acknowledges that different perspectives are inevitable.
Most legal pragmatists oppose the notion of foundational legal decision-making, and instead, rely on conventional legal materials to judge current cases. They believe that the cases aren't up to the task of providing a solid enough basis to draw properly-analyzed legal conclusions. They therefore need to be supplemented with other sources, including previously approved analogies or concepts from precedent.
The legal pragmatist is against the notion of a set or overarching fundamental principles that could be used to determine correct decisions. She claims 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 doubt and realism that characterizes Neo-pragmatism, a lot of legal pragmatists have taken a more deflationist approach to the concept of truth. By focusing on how concepts are used, describing its function, and establishing criteria to recognize that a concept has that purpose, they've been able to suggest that this may be all philosophers could reasonably expect from the theory of truth.
Other pragmatists, however, have taken a much broader approach to truth, which they have called an objective norm for assertion and inquiry. This perspective combines elements from the pragmatist tradition with classical realist and Idealist philosophy. It is also in line with the wider pragmatic tradition, which regards 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 our involvement with the world.
