Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

Pragmatism (in its colloquial usage) is often poorly understood. It is regularly believed to be something similar to the practice of moderation or compromise. But its true understanding, at its philosophical root, is far more subtle. Pragmatism began in the USA in the middle of the 19th century. Its founders were Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. For these thinkers, pragmatism claims that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected. Pragmatism therefore denies that there can be absolute truths, or that the very idea of ‘principle’ in life is a feasible way of making decisions. Pragmatism became very popular within the moderate political community, especially after the Second World War, when it was seen as a bulwark against extremist ideologies. It has since been a core tenet of many supposedly middle-ground political parties. For pragmatists, understanding how the world works, how our relationships may be governed, and how truth is defined, are all practical issues of personal agency. Taking its lead from science, pragmatism tries to prefer solutions that have successful outcomes (those that are beneficial to us). Like utilitarianism, pragmatism sees success in a purely practical form. For example, if tax cuts create economic growth, then the proposition ‘lowering taxes is good for economic development’ is pragmatically true. The ideological position a person or group may have is irrelevant. If lowering taxes means that some individuals unjustifiably benefit from the process, then this is not seen as relevant to the ‘truth’ of the proposition. But there are problems with pragmatism. For pragmatists, truth can be seen as ‘expedient’: it’s what works, rather than what is foundationally known. Consequently, there cannot be a pragmatic set of foundational propositions. For pragmatists, all truth is conditional on practical application. Paradoxically, pragmatism itself assumes a foundational belief in the practicality of truth. In addition, pragmatism ignores that society could be in a state of ideological or moral conflict involving principled beliefs. Since moral statements are not ‘true’ in principle, they can only be true when practised. The question then arises: What is excusable (or forbidden) in a pragmatic world? Written and produced by Bee Groves McDaniel, October 2022.