Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 23, 2006 19:21:41 GMT -5
While I am not sure exactly if there are any pragmatists on the boards, it does seem to be a popular belief in our society in relations to many aspects of life.
Pragmatism is a philosophy or world-view which ultimately says you determine what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, based on it's performance. Basicly it teaches in essence, "whatever works best is right."
It teaches that we should make laws based on whatever is best, we should make our own personal choices based on whatever works best, and so forth and so on.
I find pragmatism to be remarkably unreasonable. For example, since pragmatism teaches, "whatever works best is right" it doesn't really even answer the question of what is best? It's almost like saying, whatever is best is what is best. But this does not actually answer the question as to what is best or what is right.
I also find pragmatism to be arbitrary. "Whatever works best is right" but in whos opinion? Some say capitalism works best. Others say socialism works best. Some preachers say open air preaching is best. Other preachers say one2one or friendship is best. Pragmatism doesn't answer the question as to what is universally best or right.
While I understand that many things can be looked at pragmaticly. For example your can determine what hair stylist or what barber to go to on the basis of which one cuts hair best. You can decide to use a fork rather then a sthingy when eating pasta because a sthingy works best. However, isn't this even a matter of personal opinion and fails to establish any universal principles?
When it comes to ethics, pragmatism drasticly falls short. If, "whatever works best is right" then you must ask the question best for who? Robbing a bank works best for the bank robber, so long as he doesn't get caught. A pragmatist might say, it isn't best for the bank robber if he gets caught and goes to jail. You could simply say, then there are right ways to rob a bank and wrong ways to rob a bank. So long as a bank robber does not get caught then that is best for him.
A pragmatist might say, "but the individual robbing a bank is not best for the society". But you assume already that one must be concerned for the society. What if what one sees as best for himself is not best for the society? What is one views the best to be taking care of himself before taking care of anyone else? Or if he determines what is best for him is not to concern himself with society at all. In which case, a bank robber can determine what is best for him as an individual is to rob banks and also what is best for him is to not concern himself with the society.
So we can see that pragmatism is flawed and faulty in the realm of ethics. It's ultimate conclusion is arbitariness because it's based solely on opinions and persepctives rather then working in the realm of universals or absolute. The only ground to stand upon for ethics is God's Word. It alone mets the preconditions for morality.
Pragmatism is a philosophy or world-view which ultimately says you determine what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, based on it's performance. Basicly it teaches in essence, "whatever works best is right."
It teaches that we should make laws based on whatever is best, we should make our own personal choices based on whatever works best, and so forth and so on.
I find pragmatism to be remarkably unreasonable. For example, since pragmatism teaches, "whatever works best is right" it doesn't really even answer the question of what is best? It's almost like saying, whatever is best is what is best. But this does not actually answer the question as to what is best or what is right.
I also find pragmatism to be arbitrary. "Whatever works best is right" but in whos opinion? Some say capitalism works best. Others say socialism works best. Some preachers say open air preaching is best. Other preachers say one2one or friendship is best. Pragmatism doesn't answer the question as to what is universally best or right.
While I understand that many things can be looked at pragmaticly. For example your can determine what hair stylist or what barber to go to on the basis of which one cuts hair best. You can decide to use a fork rather then a sthingy when eating pasta because a sthingy works best. However, isn't this even a matter of personal opinion and fails to establish any universal principles?
When it comes to ethics, pragmatism drasticly falls short. If, "whatever works best is right" then you must ask the question best for who? Robbing a bank works best for the bank robber, so long as he doesn't get caught. A pragmatist might say, it isn't best for the bank robber if he gets caught and goes to jail. You could simply say, then there are right ways to rob a bank and wrong ways to rob a bank. So long as a bank robber does not get caught then that is best for him.
A pragmatist might say, "but the individual robbing a bank is not best for the society". But you assume already that one must be concerned for the society. What if what one sees as best for himself is not best for the society? What is one views the best to be taking care of himself before taking care of anyone else? Or if he determines what is best for him is not to concern himself with society at all. In which case, a bank robber can determine what is best for him as an individual is to rob banks and also what is best for him is to not concern himself with the society.
So we can see that pragmatism is flawed and faulty in the realm of ethics. It's ultimate conclusion is arbitariness because it's based solely on opinions and persepctives rather then working in the realm of universals or absolute. The only ground to stand upon for ethics is God's Word. It alone mets the preconditions for morality.