Pragmatism and the Illegal
Pragmatism is both a normative and descriptive theory. As a description theory it claims that the traditional view of jurisprudence is not accurate and that legal pragmatism is a better alternative.
Legal pragmatism, specifically is opposed to the idea that correct decisions can be deduced by some core principle. It favors a practical, context-based approach.
What is Pragmatism?
The pragmatism philosophy emerged in the latter half of 19th and early 20th centuries. It was the first North American philosophical movement. (It must be noted however that some adherents of existentialism were also called "pragmatists") The pragmaticists, as with many other major philosophical movements throughout history were influenced by discontent over the state of the world and the past.
It is difficult to give an exact definition of pragmatism. One of the major characteristics that are often associated with pragmatism is that it focuses on the results and their consequences. This is often in contrast to other philosophical traditions that have more of a theoretic view of truth and knowledge.
Charles Sanders Peirce has been credited as the founder of the philosophy of pragmatism. He believed that only what can be independently verified and proved through practical experiments is true or real. Furthermore, Peirce emphasized that the only way to make sense of something was to determine its impact on other things.
Another of the pragmatists who founded the movement was John Dewey (1859-1952), who was a teacher and philosopher. He created a more comprehensive method of pragmatism that included connections to society, education, art, and politics. He was influenced both by Peirce, and 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 position of relativity, but rather an attempt to attain a higher degree of clarity and well-justified established beliefs. This was achieved through the combination of practical experience and solid reasoning.
Putnam extended this neopragmatic method to be more widely described as internal Realism. This was an alternative to the correspondence theory of truth which did not aim to attain an external God's-eye perspective, but instead maintained truth's objectivity within a theory or description. It was a similar approach to the theories of Peirce, James, and Dewey, but with a more sophisticated formulation.
What is the Pragmatism Theory of Decision-Making?
A legal pragmatist regards law as a way to solve problems rather than a set of rules. He or she does not believe in the traditional view of deductive certainty, and instead focuses on the importance of context when making decisions. Legal pragmatists also argue that the idea of foundational principles is not a good idea since generally, any such principles would be discarded by the practical experience. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is superior to a classical conception of legal decision-making.
The pragmatist view is broad and has given rise to a variety of theories in philosophy, ethics as well as sociology, science and political theory. Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with the most pragmatism. His pragmatic maxim that aims to clarify the meaning of hypotheses by examining their practical implications, is its core. However, the doctrine's scope has expanded considerably over time, covering many different perspectives. The doctrine has been expanded to include a wide range of opinions which include the belief that a philosophy theory only true if it is useful, and that knowledge is more than an abstract representation of the world.
The pragmatists are not without critics, even though they have contributed to a variety of areas of philosophy. The pragmatists rejecting the notion of a priori knowledge has led to a powerful and influential critique of analytical philosophy. The critique has travelled far beyond philosophy to diverse social disciplines, including political science, jurisprudence and a host of other social sciences.
Despite this, it remains difficult to categorize a pragmatist legal theory as a descriptive theory. Most judges act as if they follow an empiricist logical framework that is based on precedent and traditional legal materials to make their decisions. A legal pragmatist, may claim that this model does not capture the true dynamics of judicial decisions. Thus, it's more appropriate to think of a pragmatist view of law as an normative theory that can provide a guideline for how law should be developed and interpreted.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Conflict Resolution?
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that sees the world's knowledge as inseparable from agency within it. It is interpreted in many different ways, often in conflict with one another. It is often seen as a reaction against analytic philosophy, but at other times it is seen as an alternative to continental thinking. It is a thriving and growing tradition.
The pragmatists were keen to emphasize the importance of experiences and the importance of the individual's consciousness in the formation of beliefs. They were also concerned to correct what they perceived as the flaws of a flawed philosophical tradition that had distorted the work of earlier philosophers. These errors included Cartesianism and Nominalism, as well as a misunderstanding of the role of human reasoning.
All pragmatists are skeptical about the unquestioned and non-experimental representations of reasoning. They are suspicious of any argument that 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 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 excessively legalistic, uninformed and insensitive to the past practices.
Contrary to the classical conception of law as a set of deductivist laws the pragmaticist emphasizes the importance of context when making legal decisions. It will also acknowledge that there are multiple ways of describing law and that this diversity must be embraced. This approach, referred to as perspectivalism, could make the legal pragmatist appear less tolerant toward precedent and prior endorsed analogies.
The view of the legal pragmatist acknowledges that judges don't have access to a basic set of principles from which they can make well-reasoned decisions in all instances. The pragmatist will therefore be keen to stress the importance of understanding the case prior to making a final decision and will be willing to modify a legal rule if it is not working.
There is no agreed picture of what a pragmatist in the legal field should be There are some characteristics that tend to define this stance on philosophy. This is a focus on context, and a denial of any attempt to draw laws from abstract concepts that aren't tested in specific situations. The pragmaticist is also aware that the law is always changing and there can't be one correct interpretation.
What is Pragmatism's Theory of Justice?
As a theory of judicial procedure, legal pragmatics has been praised as a method to bring about social change. It has been criticized for relegating legitimate philosophical and moral disagreements to legal decision-making. The pragmatist is not interested in relegating the philosophical debate to the realm of law. Instead, he prefers a pragmatic and open-ended approach, and acknowledges that different perspectives are inevitable.
Most legal pragmatists reject the notion of foundational legal decision-making and instead rely on the traditional legal material to judge current cases. They believe that cases aren't adequate for providing a firm enough foundation for deducing properly analyzed legal conclusions and therefore must be supplemented with other sources, such as previously recognized analogies or principles from precedent.
The legal pragmatist denies the idea of a set of fundamental principles that could be used to make the right decisions. She believes that this would make it easy for judges, who could then base their decisions on rules that have been established and make decisions.
Many legal pragmatists because of the skepticism typical of neopragmatism and the anti-realism it embodies and has taken an even more deflationist approach to the concept of truth. They tend to argue that by focusing on the way the concept is used, describing its purpose, and setting criteria to determine if a concept has this function that this is the only thing philosophers can reasonably be expecting from the truth theory.
Some pragmatists have taken a broader view of truth, which they refer to as an objective norm for inquiries and assertions. 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 sees truth as an objective standard for assertion and inquiry and 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, as it seeks to define truth in terms of the aims and values that govern the way a person interacts with the world.