carolsuit07

User Name: You need to be a registered (and logged in) user to view username.

Total Articles : 0

https://anotepad.com/notes/2hgwp7rj

Pragmatism and the Illegal Pragmatism can be characterized as 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 choice In particular legal pragmatism rejects the notion that right decisions can be deduced from some core principle or principles Instead it promotes a pragmatic approach based on context and trial and error What is Pragmatism Pragmatism is a philosophical concept that was developed in the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries It was the first truly North American philosophical movement though it is important to note that there were followers of the existentialism movement that was developing at the time who were also known as pragmatists The pragmaticists as with many other major philosophical movements throughout time were influenced by discontent with the state of the world and the past In terms of what pragmatism really means it is difficult to pin down a concrete definition One of the main features that is frequently associated with pragmatism is the fact that it focuses on results and consequences This is often contrasted with other philosophical traditions that have an a more theoretical view of truth and knowledge Charles Sanders Peirce has been credited as the founder of the concept of pragmatism in philosophy He believed that only what can be independently verified and proved through practical experiments is real or true 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 to 1952 was also a founder pragmatist He developed a more comprehensive approach to pragmatism which included connections to education society art politics and 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 loosely defined approach to what constitutes the truth This was not intended to be a form of relativism but rather an attempt to achieve greater clarity and solidlysubstantiated settled beliefs This was achieved by the combination of practical knowledge and solid reasoning Putnam developed this neopragmatic view to be described more broadly as internal realists This was an alternative to correspondence theories of truth that dispensed with the intention of achieving an external Gods eye viewpoint while retaining the objectivity of truth but within a description or theory It was an improved version of the ideas of Peirce and James What is the Pragmatism Theory of DecisionMaking A legal pragmatist views law as a process of problemsolving and not a set predetermined rules This is why he rejects the classical picture of deductive certainty and focuses on context as a crucial element in making decisions Moreover legal pragmatists argue that the idea of fundamental principles is a misguided notion since as a general rule they believe that any of these principles will be discarded by the practice A pragmatist view is superior to a classical view of legal decisionmaking The pragmatist perspective is broad and has led to the development of various theories that span philosophy science ethics and sociology political theory and even politics Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with the most pragmatism His pragmatic maxim a rule to clarify the meaning of hypotheses by examining their practical implications is the foundation of the However the doctrines scope has expanded considerably over the years encompassing many different perspectives These include the view that a philosophical theory is true if and only if it can be used to benefit consequences the view that knowledge is mostly a transaction with not the representation of nature and the notion that articulate language rests on an underlying foundation of shared practices that cant be fully formulated The pragmatists have their fair share of critics in spite of their contributions to many areas of philosophy The pragmatic pragmatists aversion to the concept of a priori propositional knowledge has given rise to an influential and effective critique of traditional analytical philosophy which has extended beyond philosophy to a variety of social sciences including the study of jurisprudence as well as political science It isnt easy to classify the pragmatist approach to law as a description theory Most judges make their decisions based on a logicalempirical framework which relies heavily on precedents and traditional legal documents However an expert in the field of law may well argue that this model doesnt adequately capture the real dynamics of judicial decisionmaking Thus its more appropriate to view the law from a pragmatic perspective as an normative theory that can provide guidelines for how law should be developed and interpreted What is Pragmatisms Theory of Conflict Resolution Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that sees knowledge of the world as inseparable from the agency within it It has attracted a wide and often contradictory range of interpretations It is often regarded as a response to analytic philosophy whereas at other times it is regarded as an alternative to continental thinking It is a tradition that is growing and evolving The pragmatists were keen to emphasize the importance of experience and the importance of the individuals own consciousness in the formation of beliefs They also sought to overcome what they saw as the errors of an unsound philosophical heritage that had affected the work of earlier philosophers These errors included Cartesianism Nominalism and a misunderstood of the human role reason All pragmatists are skeptical about nonexperimental and unquestioned images of reason They will be suspicious of any argument which claims that it works or we have always done things this way are valid These statements may be viewed as being too legalistic uninformed rationalist and not critical of the previous practices by the legal pragmatist Contrary to the traditional notion of law as a system of deductivist concepts the pragmatist will emphasise the importance of context in legal decisionmaking They will also recognize that there are a variety of ways to describe the law and that the diversity must be embraced This stance called perspectivalism could make the legal pragmatist appear less deferential to precedent and previously accepted analogies The legal pragmatists view recognizes that judges do not have access to a core set of principles from which they can make wellreasoned decisions in all instances The pragmatist will thus be keen to stress the importance of understanding the case before deciding and to be open to changing or rescind a law when it proves unworkable While there is mouse click the following webpage agreed definition of what a pragmatist in the legal field should be There are some characteristics which tend to characterise this stance on philosophy This is a focus on context and a rejection of any attempt to draw laws from abstract principles that are not directly tested in specific situations The pragmatist also recognizes that the law is always changing and there cant be a single correct picture What is Pragmatisms Theory of Justice Legal Pragmatism as a philosophy of justice has been praised for its ability to effect social changes However it has also been criticized for being an attempt to avoid legitimate philosophical and moral disagreements and placing them in the realm of legal decisionmaking The pragmatic is not interested in relegating philosophical debate to the realm of the law Instead they take a pragmatic approach to these disagreements which stresses contextual sensitivity the importance of an openended approach to knowledge and the willingness to accept that different perspectives are inevitable The majority of legal pragmatists do not accept the idea of a foundationalist approach to legal decisionmaking and instead rely on the traditional legal material to judge current cases They take the view that the cases arent adequate for providing a firm enough foundation to draw properlyanalyzed legal conclusions Therefore they must be supplemented with other sources like previously approved analogies or concepts from precedent The legal pragmatist rejects the notion of a set of fundamental principles that can be used to determine correct decisions She claims that this would make it easy for judges who can then base their decisions on rules that have been established and make decisions In light of the skepticism and realism that characterize Neopragmatism a lot of legal pragmatists have taken a more deflationist approach to the concept of truth By focusing on how a concept is utilized in its context describing its function and establishing criteria for recognizing that a concept has that function they have tended to argue that this is all that philosophers can reasonably expect from a theory of truth Other pragmatists have adopted a more broad approach to truth which they have called an objective norm for assertion and inquiry This approach combines elements of the pragmatist tradition with classical realist and Idealist philosophy It is also in line with the larger pragmatic tradition which regards truth as a definite standard for assertion and inquiry and not merely a standard for justification or warranted affirmability or its derivatives 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 determine a persons engagement with the world