Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism is both a descriptive and normative theory. As a description theory, it claims that the traditional conception of jurisprudence isn't correct and that legal Pragmatism is a better choice.
Legal pragmatism in particular, rejects the notion that the right decision can be deduced by some core principle. It favors a practical approach that is based on context.
What is Pragmatism?
The philosophy of pragmatism was born in the late 19th and the 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 existentialism movement that was developing at the time who were also known as "pragmatists"). The pragmaticists, as with many other major philosophical movements throughout history were influenced by discontent with the state of the world and the past.
In terms of what pragmatism really means, it is difficult to pinpoint a concrete definition. Pragmatism is often focused on results and outcomes. This is often contrasted with other philosophical traditions that have more of a theoretical approach to truth and knowledge.
Charles Sanders Peirce is credited as the inventor of the concept of pragmatism in relation to philosophy. He believed that only what can be independently tested and proved by practical tests is true or authentic. Peirce also stated that the only true method to comprehend something was to examine its impact on others.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 until 1952, was another pioneering pragmatist. He developed a more holistic approach to pragmatism that included connections with education, society, and art as well as politics. He was greatly influenced by Peirce and also drew inspiration from the German idealist philosophers Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatics also had a more loosely defined view of what is the truth. This was not meant to be a relativism but rather an attempt to attain greater clarity and solidly-substantiated settled beliefs. This was achieved through the combination of practical experience and sound reasoning.
Putnam extended this neopragmatic method to be described more broadly as internal Realism. This was a different approach to the correspondence theory of truth that did not attempt to achieve an external God's-eye viewpoint, but maintained the objectivity of truth within a description or theory. It was a similar idea to the ideas of Peirce, James and Dewey, but with a more sophisticated formulation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A legal pragmatist sees the law as a means to resolve problems, not as a set rules. Therefore, he dismisses the conventional notion of deductive certainty, and instead emphasizes the importance of context in the process of making a decision. Legal pragmatists also contend that the notion of foundational principles are misguided since, in general, such principles will be outgrown by actual practice. A pragmatic approach is superior to a classical approach to legal decision-making.
The pragmatist view is broad and has led to the development of various theories, including those in ethics, science, philosophy, political theory, sociology and even politics. However, Charles Sanders Peirce deserves most of the credit for pragmatism and his pragmatism-based maxim - a guideline for defining the meaning of hypotheses by the practical consequences they have - is the foundation of the doctrine however, the concept has since been expanded to encompass a variety of theories. The doctrine has been expanded to encompass a broad range of views, including the belief that a philosophy theory is only true if it is useful, and that knowledge is more than just an abstract representation of the world.
Although the pragmatics have contributed to many areas of philosophy, they are not without critics. The pragmatists' rejection of a priori propositional knowledge has led to an influential and powerful critique of traditional analytical philosophy that has extended beyond philosophy to a range of social disciplines, such as the study of jurisprudence as well as political science.
Despite this, it remains difficult to categorize a pragmatist view of the law as a descriptive theory. The majority of judges behave as if they're following an empiricist logic that is based on precedent and traditional legal sources for their decisions. However my sources could consider that this model does not accurately reflect the actual nature of judicial decision-making. Therefore, it is more appropriate to think of the law in a pragmatist perspective as a normative theory that offers guidelines for how law should be interpreted and developed.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that regards the world's knowledge and agency as being inseparable. It has been interpreted in many different ways, usually in opposition to one another. It is sometimes seen as a response to analytic philosophy, but at other times it is considered an alternative to continental thinking. It is a thriving and evolving tradition.
The pragmatists sought to stress the importance of experience and individual consciousness in forming beliefs. They also sought to correct what they perceived as the flaws of a flawed philosophical tradition that had altered the work of earlier thinkers. These mistakes included Cartesianism Nominalism, and a misunderstood of the importance of human reason.
All pragmatists are suspicious of non-experimental and unquestioned images of reasoning. They are skeptical 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, naive rationality and uncritical of the previous practices by the legal pragmatist.
Contrary to the traditional idea of law as a system of deductivist principles, a pragmaticist will stress the importance of context in legal decision-making. It will also acknowledge that there are a variety of ways to describe the law and that this variety is to be respected. This perspective, referred to as perspectivalism may make the legal pragmatic appear less reliant to precedent and previously accepted analogies.
One of the most important aspects of the legal pragmatist view is that it recognizes that judges do not have access to a set or rules from which they can make properly argued decisions in all cases. The pragmatist is therefore keen to stress the importance of understanding a case before making a decision and will be willing to change a legal rule in the event that it isn't working.
There is no universally agreed definition of a legal pragmaticist however, certain traits tend to characterise the philosophical stance. This includes an emphasis on context, and a rejection to any attempt to derive laws from abstract principles that are not tested in specific situations. The pragmatist also recognizes that law is constantly evolving and there can't be only one correct view.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
As a theory of judicial procedure, legal pragmatics has been praised as a method of bringing about social changes. But it has also been criticized as an attempt to avoid legitimate philosophical and moral disputes and placing them in the realm of legal decision-making. The pragmatist, however, is not interested in relegating philosophical debate to the law. Instead, they take an approach that is pragmatic in these disputes, which insists on the importance of contextual sensitivity, of an open-ended approach to learning, and the acceptance that different perspectives are inevitable.
Most legal pragmatists reject an idea of a foundationalist model of legal decision-making and rely upon traditional legal materials to establish the basis for judging present cases. They believe that the cases aren't enough to provide a solid foundation to properly analyze legal conclusions. Therefore, they must add additional sources, such as analogies or concepts drawn from precedent.
The legal pragmatist rejects the notion of a set of overarching fundamental principles that could be used to make 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 anti-realism that characterize Neo-pragmatism, a lot of legal pragmatists have adopted a more deflationist position toward the notion of truth. By focusing on the way a concept is used in its context, describing its function and establishing criteria to recognize that a concept has that purpose, they have generally argued that this may be all that philosophers can reasonably expect from a theory of truth.
Other pragmatists, however, have adopted a more broad approach to truth that they have described as an objective norm for assertion and inquiry. This view combines elements of the pragmatist tradition with classical realist and Idealist philosophies. 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 holistic view of truth has been described as an "instrumental theory of truth" since it seeks to define truth in terms of the goals and values that guide one's engagement with the world.