Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism can be described as a descriptive and normative theory. As a theory of descriptive nature, it asserts that the traditional image of jurisprudence is not correspond to reality, and that legal pragmatism provides a better alternative.
In particular the area of legal pragmatism, it rejects the idea that correct decisions can be deduced from a fundamental principle or set of principles. It advocates a pragmatic and contextual approach.
What is Pragmatism?
The philosophy of pragmatism emerged in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was the first truly North American philosophical movement (though it should be noted that there were a few followers of the contemporaneously developing existentialism who were also referred to as "pragmatists"). The pragmaticists, as with many other major philosophical movements throughout history, were partly inspired by discontent with the conditions of the world as well as the past.
It is difficult to give the precise definition of pragmatism. One of the primary characteristics that is frequently associated as pragmatism is that it is focused on results and their consequences. This is often contrasted with other philosophical traditions that have a more theoretical approach to truth and knowledge.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been credited as the founder of the concept of pragmatism in philosophy. He believed that only things that can be independently tested and proved through practical experiments is true or real. Peirce also stated that the only method of understanding something was to examine its impact on others.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 to 1952, was also a founder pragmatist. He developed a more holistic approach to pragmatism, which included connections with society, education and art and politics. He was influenced both by Peirce and by the German idealists Wilhelm von Humboldt und Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatics also had a more loosely defined view of what constitutes the truth. This was not intended to be a relativism however, but rather a way to gain clarity and firmly-justified settled beliefs. This was accomplished by combining practical knowledge with solid reasoning.
The neo-pragmatic concept was later expanded by Putnam to be defined as internal realists. This was an alternative to correspondence theory of truth, which did not aim to achieve an external God's-eye point of view but retained the objective nature of truth within a theory or description. It was similar to the ideas of Peirce, James, and Dewey however, it was a more sophisticated formulation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A legal pragmatist regards law as a way to solve problems and not as a set of rules. They reject a classical view of deductive certainty, and instead, focuses on the importance of context when making decisions. Moreover, legal pragmatists argue that the idea of foundational principles is not a good idea because generally the principles that are based on them will be discarded by the application. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is superior to the traditional view of the process of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist outlook is very broad and has given rise to many different theories in ethics, philosophy as well as sociology, science and political theory. Although Charles Sanders Peirce deserves most of the credit for pragmatism, and his pragmatic maxim that clarifies the meaning of hypotheses through tracing their practical consequences - is its central core however, the scope of the doctrine has since been expanded to encompass a wide range of views. This includes the belief that the philosophical theory is valid only if it can be used to benefit consequences, the view that knowledge is mostly a transaction with rather than a representation of nature, and the idea that language articulated is a deep bed of shared practices that cannot be fully expressed.
Although the pragmatics have contributed to many areas of philosophy, they're not without their critics. The pragmatists rejecting a priori propositional knowlege has led to a powerful and influential critique of analytical philosophy. The critique has travelled far beyond philosophy to various social disciplines like political science, jurisprudence and a host of other social sciences.
It isn't easy to classify the pragmatist view to law as a description theory. Judges tend to act as if they are following a logical empiricist framework that is based on precedent and traditional legal materials to make their decisions. However, a legal pragmatist may be able to argue that this model doesn't accurately reflect the actual nature of judicial decision-making. It is more appropriate to think of a pragmatist approach to law as a normative model which provides guidelines on how law should develop and be interpreted.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that understands knowledge of the world as inseparable from the agency within it. It has been interpreted in a variety of different ways, usually in opposition to one another. It is often seen as a reaction against analytic philosophy, but at other times it is considered an alternative to continental thinking. It is an evolving tradition that is and evolving.
The pragmatists wanted to insist on the importance of experience and individual consciousness in forming beliefs. They also wanted to overcome what they saw as the flaws in a flawed philosophical heritage which had affected the work of earlier philosophers. These errors included Cartesianism, Nominalism and a misunderstanding of the role of human reason.
All pragmatists are suspicious of unquestioned and non-experimental pictures of reason. They are skeptical of any argument that claims that "it works" or "we have always done things this way" are valid. For the legal pragmatist these statements can be seen as being overly legalistic, naively rationalist, and not critical of the previous practice.
Contrary to the traditional picture of law as a set of deductivist principles, a pragmatist will emphasise the importance of context in legal decision-making. They will also recognize the fact that there are a variety of ways to define law, and that these variations should be embraced. This perspective, referred to as perspectivalism, may make the legal pragmatic appear less deferential to precedents and accepted analogies.
The legal pragmatist's view recognizes that judges do not have access to a core set of rules from which they could make well-considered decisions in all cases. The pragmatist is keen to emphasize the importance of knowing the facts before making a decision, and to be open to changing or abandon a legal rule in the event that it proves to be unworkable.
There isn't a universally agreed concept of a pragmatic lawyer however certain traits are common to the philosophical position. This is a focus on context, and a rejection of any attempt to draw laws from abstract concepts that aren't tested in specific situations. Additionally, the pragmatic will realize that the law is always changing and there can be no one right picture of it.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
As a theory of judicial procedure, legal pragmatism has been lauded as a method of bringing about social change. But it has also been criticized for being a way of sidestepping legitimate philosophical and moral disputes, by relegating them to the arena of legal decision-making. The pragmatic does not want to confine philosophical debate to the realm of the law and instead takes a pragmatic approach to these disagreements, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 which stresses contextual sensitivity, the importance of an open-ended approach to learning, and the willingness to accept 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 sources to decide current cases. They believe that the cases themselves are not sufficient to provide a solid base for properly analyzing legal conclusions. Therefore, they need to add additional sources like analogies or the principles derived from precedent.
The legal pragmatist is against the notion of a set of 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 predetermined rules and make decisions.
Many legal pragmatists due to the skepticism characteristic of neopragmatism, and its anti-realism and has taken an elitist stance toward the concept of truth. They have tended to argue that by focussing on the way in which concepts are applied in describing its meaning, and establishing criteria that can be used to establish that a certain concept is useful that this is the only thing philosophers can reasonably expect from the truth theory.
Some pragmatists have adopted a more broad approach to truth and have referred to it as an objective norm for assertion and inquiry. This perspective combines elements from pragmatism, classical realist, and Idealist philosophies. It is also in line with the wider pragmatic tradition, which sees truth as an objective standard of assertion and inquiry and not just a measure of justification or warranted affirmability (or its derivatives). This holistic view of truth has been called an "instrumental theory of truth" since it seeks to define truth in terms of the purposes and values that guide an individual's interaction with reality.