stormocelot95

Pragmatism and the Illegal Pragmatism is both a descriptive and normative theory. As a description theory, it asserts that the traditional view of jurisprudence is not correct and that legal Pragmatism is a better choice. Legal pragmatism, specifically is opposed to the idea that correct decisions can simply be determined by a core principle. Instead it advocates a practical approach that is based on context and the process of experimentation. What is Pragmatism? The philosophy of pragmatism emerged in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was the first North American philosophical movement. (It should be noted however that some adherents of existentialism were also referred to as “pragmatists”) The pragmaticists, like many other major philosophical movements throughout history were influenced by discontent over the situation in the world and the past. In terms of what pragmatism actually means, it is a challenge to pin down a concrete definition. Pragmatism is typically associated with its focus on results and outcomes. This is often contrasted with other philosophical traditions that take an a more theoretical view of truth and knowledge. Charles Sanders Peirce has been acknowledged as the father of pragmatism in philosophy. He believed that only what can be independently tested and proved through practical experiments is real or true. Peirce also stressed that the only method of understanding something was to look at its impact on others. Another pragmatist who was a founding figure was John Dewey (1859-1952), who was a teacher and philosopher. He developed a more holistic approach to pragmatism, which included connections to society, education and art as well as politics. He was influenced by Peirce and also took inspiration from the German idealist philosophers Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Hegel. The pragmatists also had a more flexible view of what constitutes truth. It was not intended to be a relativist position however, rather a way to attain a higher level of clarity and solidly accepted beliefs. This was achieved through an amalgamation of practical experience and sound reasoning. The neo-pragmatic concept was later expanded by Putnam to be more broadly defined as internal Realism. This was a variant of the correspondence theory of truth that did not attempt to attain an external God's-eye perspective, but instead maintained the objective nature of truth within a description or theory. It was a similar idea to the ideas of Peirce, James and Dewey, but with more sophisticated formulation. What is the Pragmatism Theory of Decision-Making? A pragmatist in the field of law views law as a resolving process and not a set predetermined rules. He or she rejects a classical view of deductive certainty and instead emphasizes the role of context in decision-making. Furthermore, legal pragmatists believe that the notion of fundamental principles is a misguided notion because generally they believe that any of these principles will be discarded by the practice. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is superior to the traditional conception of legal decision-making. The pragmatist perspective is extremely broad and has given birth to many different theories in ethics, philosophy as well as sociology, science and political theory. However, Charles Sanders Peirce deserves most of the credit for pragmatism, and his pragmatic principle – a rule for clarifying the meaning of hypotheses by tracing their practical consequences – is the foundation of the doctrine but the concept has since been expanded to cover a broad range of perspectives. This includes the belief that a philosophical theory is true only if it has useful implications, the belief that knowledge is primarily a process of transacting with rather than an expression of nature, and the idea that articulate language rests on an underlying foundation of shared practices that cannot be fully formulated. Although the pragmatics have contributed to many areas of philosophy, they aren't without critics. The pragmatists' rejection of a priori propositional knowlege has resulted in a powerful, influential critique of analytical philosophy. The critique has travelled far beyond philosophy into various social disciplines like political science, jurisprudence and a variety of other social sciences. It isn't easy to classify the pragmatist approach to law as a description theory. Most judges make decisions using a logical-empirical framework that relies heavily on precedents and other traditional legal documents. A legal pragmatist, however might claim that this model doesn't capture the true dynamics of judicial decisions. Therefore, it is more appropriate to view the law from a pragmatic perspective as a normative theory that provides guidelines for how law should be developed and interpreted. What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution? Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that understands the knowledge of the world as inseparable from agency within it. It has been interpreted in many different ways, often at odds with each other. It is often viewed as a response to analytic philosophy, while at other times, it is considered an alternative to continental thinking. It is a thriving and developing tradition. The pragmatists wanted to stress the importance of experience and individual consciousness in forming beliefs. They also wanted to correct what they considered to be the errors of an outdated philosophical heritage that had altered the work of earlier thinkers. These errors included Cartesianism and Nominalism, and a misunderstanding of the role of human reasoning. All pragmatists are skeptical of untested and non-experimental images of reasoning. They will be suspicious of any argument that asserts that “it works” or “we have always done things this way” are true. For the legal pragmatist these statements could be interpreted as being overly legalistic, uninformed and not critical of the previous practices. Contrary to the traditional picture of law as a set of deductivist concepts, the pragmatic will emphasize the importance of the context of legal decision-making. They will also recognize that there are a variety of ways of describing law and that this diversity should be respected. This perspective, referred to as perspectivalism may make the legal pragmatic appear less deferential to precedent and previously accepted analogies. The legal pragmatist's view acknowledges that judges don't have access to a core set of rules from which they could make well-reasoned decisions in all instances. The pragmatist will therefore be keen to emphasize the importance of understanding a case before making a final decision and is prepared to change a legal rule when it isn't working. There isn't a universally agreed definition of a legal pragmaticist however certain traits tend to characterise the philosophical position. This includes an emphasis on context, and a rejection of any attempt to draw laws from abstract concepts that are not tested in specific situations. The pragmatist also recognizes that the law is constantly changing and there isn't one correct interpretation. What is the Pragmatism Theory of Justice? As a judicial theory legal pragmatism has been lauded as a method of bringing about social changes. It has been criticized for relegating legitimate moral and philosophical disagreements to the realm of legal decision-making. The pragmatic is not interested in relegating philosophical debates to the legal realm. Instead, he prefers an open and pragmatic approach, and acknowledges that different perspectives are inevitable. The majority of legal pragmatists do not believe in the foundationalist view of legal decision-making and rely upon traditional legal sources to establish the basis for judging present cases. They believe that the case law aren't enough to provide a solid basis for properly analyzing legal conclusions. Therefore, they need to add other sources such as analogies or principles derived from precedent. The legal pragmatist denies the notion of a set or overarching fundamental principles that can be used to make the right decisions. She claims that this would make it easier for judges, who could then base their decisions on rules that have been established in order to make their decisions. Many legal pragmatists because of the skepticism that is characteristic of neopragmatism, and its anti-realism, have taken an elitist stance toward the notion of truth. By focusing on how a concept is used, describing its function, and establishing criteria to recognize the concept's purpose, they have generally argued that this may be the only thing philosophers can expect from a theory of truth. pragmatic kr , however, have taken a more expansive view of truth that they have described as an objective standard for assertion and inquiry. This perspective combines aspects of pragmatism with those of the classic idealist and realist philosophical systems, and is in line with the larger pragmatic tradition that views truth as a norm for assertion and inquiry, rather than simply a normative standard to justify or warranted assertion (or any of its variants). This more holistic view of truth is called an “instrumental” theory of truth because it is a search for truth to be defined in terms of the aims and values that govern the way a person interacts with the world.