Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism can be characterized as both a descriptive and normative theory. As a description theory, it argues that the classical conception of jurisprudence isn't accurate and that legal pragmatism is a better alternative.
Particularly, legal pragmatism rejects the notion that right decisions can be determined from a core principle or principles. Instead it promotes a pragmatic approach based on context, and the process of experimentation.
What is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is a philosophy that developed during the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was the first North American philosophical movement. (It should be noted that some existentialism followers were also called "pragmatists") The pragmaticists, as with many other major philosophical movements throughout history were in part influenced by discontent with the conditions of the world as well as 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 take an a more theoretical view of truth and knowledge.
Charles Sanders Peirce is credited as the spokesman for pragmatic thinking in the context of philosophy. He believed that only what could be independently tested and proven through practical tests was believed to be authentic. Peirce also stated that the only method to comprehend the truth of something was to study its impact on others.
Another pragmatist who was a founding figure was John Dewey (1859-1952), who was a teacher as well as a philosopher. He developed a more holistic approach to pragmatism. This included connections to education, society, and art as well as politics. 프라그마틱 환수율 was greatly influenced by Peirce and also took inspiration from the German idealist philosophers Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Hegel.
The pragmatics also had a loosely defined approach to what constitutes truth. This was not meant to be a realism, but an attempt to achieve greater clarity and solidly-substantiated settled beliefs. This was achieved by combining practical experience with solid reasoning.
Putnam developed this neopragmatic view to be more broadly described as internal Realism. This was an alternative to correspondence theories of truth that dispensed with the intention of achieving an external God's eye viewpoint while retaining the objective nature of truth, although within a theory or description. It was a similar idea to the ideas of Peirce James and Dewey however with a more sophisticated formulation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Decision-Making?
A pragmatist in the field of law views law as a resolving process, not a set of predetermined rules. He or she rejects the traditional view of deductive certainty and instead focuses on the role of context in decision-making. Furthermore, legal pragmatists believe that the notion 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. Thus, a pragmatist approach is superior to a traditional conception of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist outlook is very broad and has given birth to a myriad of theories in philosophy, ethics and sociology, science, and political theory. Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with being the most pragmatist. His pragmatic maxim that aims to clarify the meaning of hypotheses through their practical implications, is its core. However the doctrine's scope has grown significantly over time, covering various perspectives. The doctrine has been expanded to encompass a broad range of perspectives which include the belief that a philosophy theory only valid if it's useful, and that knowledge is more than just an abstract representation of the world.
The pragmatists have their fair share of critics even though they have contributed to a variety of areas of philosophy. The pragmatists' refusal to accept the notion of a priori knowledge has led to a powerful and influential critique of analytical philosophy. This critique has spread far beyond philosophy into various social disciplines like the fields of jurisprudence, political science, and a variety of other social sciences.
It is still difficult to categorize the pragmatist approach to law as a description theory. Judges tend to act as if they follow an empiricist logical framework that is based on precedent as well as traditional legal materials for their decisions. However an expert in the field of law may be able to argue that this model does not accurately reflect the actual nature of judicial decision-making. Consequently, it seems more appropriate to view the law from a pragmatic perspective as an normative theory that can provide a guideline for how law should be interpreted and developed.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophic tradition that views the world's knowledge and agency as unassociable. It has been interpreted in a variety of different ways, and often in opposition to one another. It is often viewed as a response to analytic philosophy, whereas at other times, it is considered an alternative to continental thought. It is a thriving and developing tradition.
The pragmatists were keen to emphasise the value of experience and the importance of the individual's consciousness in the formation of beliefs. They also wanted to rectify what they perceived as the errors of an unsound philosophical heritage that had distorted the work of earlier thinkers. These mistakes included Cartesianism Nominalism and a misunderstanding of the importance of human reason.
All pragmatists are skeptical about non-experimental and unquestioned images of reasoning. They are suspicious of any argument which claims that "it works" or "we have always done things this way" are true. For the pragmatist in the field of law, these statements could be interpreted as being overly legalistic, naively rationalist and not critical of the previous practice.
Contrary to the traditional idea of law as a system of deductivist principles, the pragmatist will emphasise the importance of the context of legal decision-making. It will also acknowledge that there are many ways of describing the law and that this variety should be respected. This perspective, referred to as perspectivalism may make the legal pragmatic appear less deferential to precedents and previously accepted analogies.
A key feature of the legal pragmatist perspective is that it recognizes that judges are not privy to a set of core rules from which they can make properly argued decisions in every case. The pragmatist is keen to stress the importance of understanding the situation before deciding and to be open to changing or abandon a legal rule when it is found to be ineffective.
There is no universally agreed definition of a legal pragmaticist however, certain traits are characteristic of the philosophical position. This includes a focus on the context, and a reluctance of any attempt to draw laws from abstract concepts that are not directly tested in specific cases. The pragmatist is also aware that the law is always changing and there isn't one correct interpretation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Justice?
As a theory of judicial procedure, legal pragmatics has been praised as a way of bringing about social changes. It has been criticized for delegating legitimate moral and philosophical disagreements to legal decision-making. The pragmatic is not interested in relegating philosophical debate to the law and instead takes an approach that is pragmatic in these disputes, which insists on contextual sensitivity, the importance of an open-ended approach to knowledge, and a willingness to acknowledge that perspectives are inevitable.
The majority of legal pragmatists do not believe in a foundationalist picture of legal decision-making and rely upon traditional legal documents to establish the basis for judging current cases. They believe that the case law themselves are not sufficient to provide a solid foundation to properly analyze legal conclusions. Therefore, they need to add other sources like analogies or the principles drawn from precedent.
The legal pragmatist is against the notion of a set of fundamental principles that could be used to make correct decisions. She claims that this would make it simpler for judges, who can then base their decisions on predetermined rules and make decisions.
In light of the doubt and realism that characterizes neo-pragmatism, many legal pragmatists have taken an increasingly deflationist view of the concept of truth. They have tended to argue, focussing on the way in which a concept is applied and describing its function, and creating criteria to determine if a concept serves this purpose, that this could be the only thing philosophers can reasonably expect from a truth theory.
Some pragmatists have adopted an expansive view of truth, referring to it as an objective norm for inquiries and assertions. This view combines features of pragmatism and those of the classic idealist and realist philosophies, and it is in keeping with the larger pragmatic tradition that sees truth as a norm for assertion and inquiry, rather than an arbitrary standard for justification or justified assertion (or any of its variants). This holistic conception of truth has been described as an "instrumental theory of truth" because it seeks only to define truth in terms of the purposes and values that guide an individual's involvement with reality.