Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism can be described as a descriptive and normative theory. As a theory of descriptive nature, it claims that the classical picture of jurisprudence does not reflect reality and that pragmatism in law provides a better alternative.
Legal pragmatism, specifically, rejects the notion that correct decisions can simply be deduced by some core principle. It argues for a pragmatic and contextual approach.
What is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is a philosophical concept that emerged during the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was the first North American philosophical movement. (It must be noted however that some existentialism followers were also called "pragmatists") The pragmaticists, as with many other major philosophical movements throughout time, were partly inspired by discontent over the state of the world and the past.
It is difficult to provide an exact definition of pragmatism. Pragmatism is typically associated with its focus on outcomes and results. This is often in contrast with other philosophical traditions that take a more theoretical approach to truth and knowledge.
Charles Sanders Peirce is credited as the spokesman for pragmatism as it applies to philosophy. He believed that only what can be independently verified and proved by practical tests is true or authentic. Additionally, Peirce emphasized that the only way to make sense of something was to study its impact on other things.
John Dewey, an educator and philosopher who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a second pioneering pragmatist. He developed an approach that was more holistic to pragmatism, which included connections to society, education and art and politics. He was influenced both by Peirce and also 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 realism position, but rather an attempt to achieve a greater degree of clarity and firmly justified established beliefs. This was achieved by combining practical experience with solid reasoning.
Putnam expanded this neopragmatic approach to be more widely described as internal Realism. This was a variant of the theory of correspondence, which did not seek to attain an external God's-eye viewpoint, but maintained truth's objectivity within a description or theory. It was a similar idea to the ideas of Peirce James, and Dewey however with more sophisticated formulation.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Decision-Making?
A legal pragmatist views law as a method to resolve problems, not as a set rules. He or she does not believe in the classical notion of deductive certainty, and instead emphasizes context in decision-making. Legal pragmatists also argue that the notion of fundamental principles is a misguided idea since, in general, these principles will be disproved by the actual application. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is superior to the classical approach to legal decision-making.
The pragmatist perspective is broad and has inspired many different theories that span philosophy, science, ethics sociology, political theory and even politics. However, Charles Sanders Peirce deserves most of the credit for pragmatism, and his pragmatism-based maxim that clarifies the meaning of hypotheses through tracing their practical consequences - is its central core however, the scope of the doctrine has expanded to encompass a variety of views. The doctrine has been expanded to encompass a broad range of perspectives, including the belief that a philosophy theory 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 even though they have contributed to a variety of areas of philosophy. The pragmatists' refusal to accept a priori propositional knowlege has led to a powerful critical and influential critique of analytical philosophy. This critique has spread across the entire field of philosophy to a variety social disciplines including jurisprudence, political science and a host of other social sciences.
Despite this, it remains difficult to classify a pragmatic view of the law as a descriptive theory. Most judges make their decisions that are based on a logical and empirical framework, which is heavily based on precedents and conventional legal documents. However an expert in the field of law may well argue that this model does not adequately reflect the real-time the judicial decision-making process. It is more appropriate to see a pragmatic approach to law as a normative model that provides guidelines on how law should develop and be interpreted.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is an ancient philosophical tradition that views the world and agency as being unassociable. It has attracted a wide and often contrary range of interpretations. It is often viewed as a reaction against analytic philosophy, while at other times it is seen as an alternative to continental thinking. It is an emerging tradition that is and growing.
The pragmatists sought to emphasize the importance of personal experience and consciousness in the formation of beliefs. They also wanted to overcome what they saw as the flaws in an unsound philosophical heritage that had affected the work of earlier thinkers. These errors included Cartesianism as well as Nominalism, as well as an inadequacy of the role of human reasoning.
All pragmatists are skeptical of the unquestioned and non-experimental representations of reason. They will therefore be skeptical of any argument that claims that 'it works' or 'we have always done it this way' is valid. These assertions could be seen as being too legalistic, naively rationality and uncritical of the practices of the past by the legal pragmatist.
In contrast to the classical notion of law as a system of deductivist principles, the pragmatic will emphasize the importance of the context of legal decision-making. They will also recognize that there are multiple ways of describing law and that this diversity must be embraced. This stance, called perspectivalism, could make the legal pragmatist appear less respectful towards precedent and previously endorsed analogies.
The legal pragmatist's perspective acknowledges that judges don't have access to a fundamental set of principles from which they can make well-thought-out decisions in all cases. The pragmatist will therefore be keen to emphasize the importance of understanding the case prior to making a decision and will be willing to change a legal rule in the event that it isn't working.
There is no universally agreed concept of a pragmatic lawyer however, certain traits tend to characterise the philosophical stance. This includes a focus on the context, and a reluctance of any attempt to draw laws from abstract principles that aren't tested in specific situations. In addition, the pragmatist will recognise that the law is continuously changing and there will be no single correct picture of it.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Justice?
Legal Pragmatism as a philosophy of justice has been lauded for its ability to bring about social changes. It has been criticized for delegating legitimate moral and philosophical disagreements to legal decision-making. The pragmatic does not want to confine philosophical debate to the realm of the law. Instead, they take an approach that is pragmatic to these disagreements, which stresses contextual sensitivity, the importance of an open-ended approach to knowledge and the willingness to accept that the existence of perspectives is inevitable.
Most legal pragmatists reject a foundationalist picture of legal decision-making and rely upon traditional legal materials to establish the basis for judging present cases. They believe that cases are not necessarily adequate for providing a solid enough basis for deducing properly analyzed legal conclusions and therefore must be supplemented by other sources, including previously endorsed analogies or principles from precedent.
The legal pragmatist denies the idea 프라그마틱 체험 of a set or overarching fundamental principles that could be used to make the right decisions. She believes that this would make it easier for judges, who can base their decisions on rules that have been established, to make decisions.
In light of the doubt and anti-realism that characterize neo-pragmatism, many legal pragmatists have adopted an increasingly deflationist view of the concept of truth. They tend to argue that by focusing on the way a concept is applied in describing its meaning and establishing criteria that can be used to establish that a certain concept has this function that this is the standard that philosophers can reasonably expect from the truth theory.
Some pragmatists have taken a broader view of truth, referring to it as an objective standard for assertions and inquiries. This approach combines elements of the pragmatist tradition with classical realist and Idealist philosophies. It is also in line with the larger pragmatic tradition, which regards truth as a definite standard for inquiry and assertion, not just a measure of justification or warranted affirmability (or its derivatives). This more holistic concept of truth is known as an "instrumental" theory of truth, because it seeks to define truth in terms of the aims and values that govern the way a person interacts with the world.