Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism can be characterized as both a descriptive and normative theory. As a description theory, it asserts that the traditional view of jurisprudence may not be accurate and that legal pragmatism is a better alternative.
Legal pragmatism, in particular, rejects the notion that the right decision can be deduced by some core principle. It advocates a pragmatic 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 fully North American philosophical movement (though it is worth noting that there were followers of the existentialism movement that was developing at the time who were also referred to as "pragmatists"). The pragmaticists, like many other major philosophical movements throughout history, were partly inspired by discontent over the conditions of the world as well as the past.
In terms of what pragmatism actually means, it is difficult to pin down a concrete definition. One of the main features that are often associated with pragmatism is the fact that it focuses on the results and consequences. This is often contrasted to other philosophical traditions that take a more theoretic approach to truth and knowing.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been acknowledged as the father of the concept of pragmatism in philosophy. He believed that only what can be independently tested and proved by practical tests is true or real. In addition, Peirce emphasized that the only way to understand the significance of something was to determine its effects on other things.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 until 1952, was also a pioneering pragmatist. He developed a more holistic approach to pragmatism. This included connections to society, education and art and politics. He was influenced by Peirce and by the German idealists Wilhelm von Humboldt und Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatics also had a flexible view of what is the truth. This was not intended to be a form of relativism however, but rather a way to gain clarity and solidly-substantiated settled beliefs. This was achieved through the combination of practical experience and sound reasoning.
Putnam expanded this neopragmatic approach to be described more broadly as internal realism. This was an alternative to the theory of correspondence, which did not aim to attain an external God's-eye point of view but retained the objectivity of truth within a description or theory. It was similar to the theories of Peirce, James, and Dewey however with a more sophisticated formulation.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Decision-Making?
A legal pragmatist regards the law as a means to solve problems, not as a set rules. He or she rejects a classical view of deductive certainty and instead, focuses on the importance of context when making decisions. Furthermore, legal pragmatists believe that the notion of foundational principles is misguided since, as a general rule the principles that are based on them will be outgrown by application. A pragmatic approach is superior to a classical conception of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist outlook is very broad and has given rise to a myriad of theories in philosophy, ethics and sociology, science, and political theory. However, 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 the foundation of the doctrine but the concept has since expanded significantly to cover a broad range of perspectives. The doctrine has grown to encompass a variety of opinions which include the belief that a philosophy theory is only valid if it is useful and that knowledge is more than a representation of the world.
The pragmatists have their fair share of critics, in spite of their contributions to many areas of philosophy. The the pragmatists' refusal to accept the notion of a priori knowledge has led to a powerful and influential critique of traditional analytical philosophy, which has expanded beyond philosophy to a variety of social disciplines, including jurisprudence and political science.
However, it is difficult to classify a pragmatist legal theory as a descriptive theory. The majority of judges behave as if they are following an empiricist logic that is based on precedent and traditional legal materials to make their decisions. However an attorney pragmatist could well argue that this model doesn't adequately reflect the real-time nature of judicial decision-making. Therefore, it is more appropriate to view the law in a pragmatist perspective as a normative theory that provides an outline of how law should be interpreted and developed.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophy that views knowledge of the world as inseparable from the agency within it. It has attracted a wide and sometimes contradictory variety of interpretations. It is often seen as a response to analytic philosophy, while at other times, it is viewed as a counter-point to continental thought. It is a thriving and developing tradition.
The pragmatists wanted to emphasise the value of experiences and the importance of the individual's own mind in the formation of beliefs. They also sought to rectify what they perceived as the flaws of an unsound philosophical heritage that had distorted the work of earlier thinkers. 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 These errors included Cartesianism, Nominalism, and a misunderstood view of the importance of human reason.
All pragmatists are skeptical of non-tested and untested images of reason. They will be suspicious of any argument that claims that "it works" or "we have always done things this way" are valid. 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.
In contrast to the conventional picture of law as a system of deductivist principles, a pragmaticist will stress the importance of context in legal decision-making. It will also recognize the possibility of a variety of ways to describe law and that these different interpretations must be embraced. This approach, referred to as 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 cases. The pragmatist will therefore be keen to stress the importance of knowing the facts before deciding and to be willing to change or even omit a rule of law 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. They include a focus on context, and a rejection of any attempt to deduce law from abstract principles that cannot be tested in a particular case. The pragmatist also recognizes that the law is always changing and there can't be a single correct picture.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice?
Legal Pragmatism as a philosophy of justice has been praised for its ability to bring about social change. It has been criticized for delegating legitimate philosophical and moral disagreements to legal decision-making. The pragmatic is not interested in relegating philosophical debate to the law and instead takes a pragmatic approach to these disputes, which emphasizes contextual sensitivity, the importance of an open-ended approach to learning, and the acceptance that different perspectives are inevitable.
Most legal pragmatists reject the idea of a foundationalist approach to legal decision-making and instead rely on the traditional legal materials to judge current cases. They believe that the cases alone are not enough to provide a solid foundation for properly analyzing legal conclusions. Therefore, they must supplement the case with other sources such as analogies or concepts derived from precedent.
The legal pragmatist also rejects the idea that good decisions can be derived from a set of fundamental principles and argues that such a scenario makes judges too easy to rest their decisions on predetermined "rules." Instead she favors a method that recognizes the omnipotent influence of the context.
Many legal pragmatists, because of the skepticism characteristic of neopragmatism, and its anti-realism they have adopted an elitist stance toward the concept of truth. By focusing on how a concept is utilized and describing its purpose, and establishing criteria for recognizing that a concept performs that function, they have tended to argue that this may be all that philosophers can reasonably expect from a theory of truth.
Some pragmatists have adopted more expansive views of truth, which they refer to as an objective standard for assertions and inquiries. This view combines features of pragmatism and those of the classic idealist and realist philosophies, and it is in keeping with the broader pragmatic tradition that regards truth as a norm of assertion and inquiry, rather than an arbitrary standard for justification or warranted assertibility (or any of its derivatives). This holistic perspective of truth is described as an "instrumental theory of truth" since it seeks to define truth by the goals and values that guide one's involvement with reality.