Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism can be described as a descriptive and normative theory. As a descriptive theory, it affirms that the conventional picture of jurisprudence does not fit reality, and that legal pragmatism offers a better alternative.
In particular, legal pragmatism rejects the idea that correct decisions can be derived from a fundamental principle or principles. It argues for a pragmatic and contextual approach.
What is Pragmatism?
The philosophy of pragmatism was born in the latter half of 19th and the early 20th century. It was the first fully North American philosophical movement (though it is worth noting that there were also followers of the later-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 a challenge to pinpoint a concrete definition. Pragmatism is usually associated with its focus on outcomes and results. 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 things that could be independently tested and verified through experiments was considered real or true. Peirce also emphasized that the only real method of understanding something was to examine its impact on others.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 to 1952, was another founder pragmatist. He created a more comprehensive approach to pragmatism that included connections to society, education, art, and politics. He was influenced by Peirce, and the German idealists Wilhelm von Humboldt und Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatists also had a more loosely defined view of what constitutes the truth. This was not meant to be a realism however, but rather a way to gain clarity and solidly-substantiated settled beliefs. This was achieved by an amalgamation of practical experience and sound reasoning.
The neo-pragmatic concept was later expanded by Putnam to be defined as internal realism. This was a variant of correspondence theory of truth, which did not aim to create an external God's eye point of view but retained the objective nature of truth within a theory or description. It was a similar approach 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 problem-solving activity, not a set of predetermined rules. They reject the classical notion of deductive certainty and instead emphasizes the role of context in decision-making. Furthermore, legal pragmatists believe that the idea of foundational principles is not a good idea because, as a general rule the principles that are based on them will be outgrown by practice. A pragmatist view is superior to a classical conception of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist view is broad and has given birth to a myriad 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 in recent years, covering a wide variety of views. The doctrine has been expanded to encompass a variety of perspectives, including the belief that a philosophy theory is only valid if it's useful and that knowledge is more than a representation of the world.
The pragmatists do not go unnoticed by critics, in spite of their contributions to many areas of philosophy. The pragmatists' refusal to accept a priori propositional knowlege has resulted in a ferocious critical and influential critique of analytical philosophy. This critique has reverberated across the entire field of philosophy to various social disciplines like jurisprudence, political science and a host of other social sciences.
Despite this, it remains difficult to classify a pragmatist legal theory as a descriptive theory. Most judges make decisions based on a logical-empirical framework that relies heavily on precedents and conventional legal documents. However an expert in the field of law may be able to argue that this model does not accurately reflect the actual the judicial decision-making process. It seems more appropriate to think of a pragmatist approach to law as an normative model that serves as 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 the world and agency as being unassociable. It has drawn a wide and often contrary range of interpretations. It is often seen as a response to analytic philosophy while at other times, it is seen as a different approach to continental thinking. It is an emerging tradition that is and developing.
The pragmatists wanted to insist on the importance of personal experience and consciousness in forming beliefs. They also wanted to correct what they considered as the flaws of a dated philosophical tradition that had distorted earlier 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 thinkers' work. These errors included Cartesianism and Nominalism, as well as an inadequacy of the role of human reasoning.
All pragmatists are skeptical of untested and non-experimental images of reason. They will therefore be cautious of any argument which claims that 'it works' or 'we have always done it this way' is valid. These statements could be interpreted as being too legalistic, uninformed rationality and uncritical of the practices of the past by the legal pragmatist.
Contrary to the traditional notion of law as a set of deductivist principles, the pragmatic will emphasize the importance of context in legal decision-making. They will also recognize that there are a variety of ways of describing law and that the diversity is to be respected. This stance, called perspectivalism, could make the legal pragmatist appear less deferential towards precedent and previously endorsed analogies.
The legal pragmatist's perspective acknowledges that judges don't have access to a basic set of rules from which they can make well-thought-out decisions in all instances. The pragmatist therefore wants to emphasize the importance of understanding the case prior to making a final decision and is willing to alter a law when it isn't working.
There is no agreed picture of what a pragmatist in the legal field should look like There are a few characteristics which tend to characterise this stance of philosophy. These include an emphasis on context and the rejection of any attempt to deduce law from abstract principles that are not directly tested in a particular case. The pragmatic also recognizes that law is constantly evolving and there isn't a single correct picture.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
As a judicial theory, legal pragmatics has been praised as a means of bringing about social changes. It has been criticized for relegating legitimate philosophical and moral disagreements to legal decision-making. The pragmatist, however, does not want to confine philosophical debate to the realm of the law. Instead, they take an approach that is pragmatic in these disputes that insists on the importance of an open-ended approach to learning, and a willingness to acknowledge that perspectives are inevitable.
The majority of legal pragmatists do not accept the idea of a foundationalist approach to 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 foundation for deducing properly analyzed legal conclusions and therefore must be supplemented with other sources, like previously approved analogies or concepts from precedent.
The legal pragmatist denies the notion of a set of overarching fundamental principles that could be used to determine correct decisions. She argues that this would make it easier for judges, who can then base their decisions on predetermined rules, to make decisions.
In light of the skepticism and realism that characterizes Neo-pragmatism, a lot of legal pragmatists have taken an increasingly deflationist view of the concept of truth. By focusing on how concepts are used, describing its function, and establishing criteria to recognize the concept's purpose, they have generally argued that this is the only thing philosophers can expect from the theory of truth.
Certain pragmatists have taken on more expansive views of truth, referring to it as an objective norm for inquiries and assertions. This view combines elements of pragmatism and classical realist and Idealist philosophy. It is also in line with the wider pragmatic tradition, which views truth as an objective standard for assertion and inquiry, and not merely a standard for justification or warranted affirmability (or its derivatives). This holistic conception of truth has been described as an "instrumental theory of truth" because it aims to define truth in terms of the goals and values that guide an individual's interaction with the world.