• rickyk95
    53
    I've been reading William James' lectures on Pragmatism and I like the idea of a belief's truth value being reduced to its practical consequences. James gives several examples of how endless debates about a word's metaphysical meaning get us nowhere, and that we instead ought to look at the practical differences between opposing sides of any given debate.

    Some examples:

    Free Will vs Determinism
    He mentions that when it comes to Free Will, many people claim to be concerned about merits and demerits in the criminal realm and how it will affect justice, but that this view is mistaken; people who do bad things will continue to be punished regardless of whether we believe they have agency or not. What really is at stake in the Free Will debate is whether we believe we have capacity to create novelty. If we are mere products of physical processes we don't have the capacity to change, whereas if we have volition, we do, and this is the only thing that matters in practical terms.

    Spiritualism vs Materialism
    He makes a similar case for the Spiritualism vs Materialism debate. He says that both theories are exactly the same in terms of what has already occurred. Whether or not there is matter and everything in the world is composed of it, is of secondary importance at best. What really is at stake, in terms of practical cash value, in this debate, is whether or not we believe our future holds a promise for moral order. If Spiritualism is true, then there will always be a moral order that is guarded by God, whereas if Materialism is true, our life is just a physical contingency devoid of ethics.

    Setting aside the possibility that I could've misunderstood him in what he meant (if so please correct me), what would a Pragmatist say about Pro Life vs Pro Choice?
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    I guess the first thing to note is that the abortion debate is not the same kind of debate as the metaphysical debates that you and James discuss: James' whole point is that we ought to pay attention to practical consequences regardless of the apparent underlying theories - but the abortion debate already is about practical consequences. This is not the kind of case available to the kind of strategy employed by James with respect to Free Will and Materialism. If the approach to the latter has the form: 'regardless of X or Y, these are the results', the abortion debate has no 'regardless of...': it is already situated at the level of results. There may be more refined pragmatist approaches here, but in general terms, the abortion debate is not 'just' a metaphysical debate, it is always-already a 'practical' one. There's no (obvious) metaphysics to do away with: it's raw practicality from the get-go.

    The debate, where it exists, largely turns upon how to understand the significance of actions (taken or not taken).
  • Shamshir
    855
    To a pragmatist abortion is stagnation.

    Something that is indicated by William:
    What really is at stake in the Free Will debate is whether we believe we have capacity to create novelty.rickyk95

    You're not saving yourself the trouble, you're sparing yourself the responsibility when you choose to abort.
  • rickyk95
    53
    Makes a lot of sense
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    Abortion will always be a fact of life. Better to supervise and allow it rather than let it go backyard...
  • Manuel
    3.9k
    From James' pragmatism, which seems to me to be rather broader than Peirce's idea of it, it depends on what the abortion would imply for the person involved.

    Assuming it's an unwanted baby, which would be raised in circumstances which are far from ideal, then it would lead to living a normal life.

    If it's because of some potential health consequences, then you save a life.

    If it's done last minute, say, 8 months in, things are quite murky.
  • praxis
    6.2k
    Abortion is awful!PatriciaCollins

    It is, but there are worse things, like backstreet abortions, or children being raised in impoverished conditions.
  • baker
    5.6k
    Abortion will always be a fact of life.Tom Storm

    Because women live to TOLO! And they must live to TOLO!
  • gloaming
    128
    I know it's motherhood, but in the final analysis pragmatism is merely teleological reasoning. It has its appeal, and it has its uses. Whether-or-not it is principled in application in all cases is what we need to determine, and even that is murky business.

    It makes it easier when you remove the fetus from the values set. We have done that in the 'progressive' west. If we restore the value of the fetus, now we're treading water with great depths below us, and who knows what's down there looking up?

    If we reduce the value of 'free will' to zero, as some insist we should, then we must also destroy the apparent intrinsic value of altruism. And, few would agree that abortion is altruistic..........right? It could be, maybe even in a heavy majority of cases arguably, but not always.
  • theRiddler
    260
    He or she would say simply what everyone can agree to, that abortion isn't beautiful, and though it's admittedly more complicated than simply "abortion is wrong," its ultimate eradication should, ideally be kept in our sights. And let the pieces fall where they may.

    Sometimes all you can do is the best you can do.
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    A pragmatist would say that what goes on in the privacy of a doctor's office is not the state's or anyone else's business. End of story.

    Or, a pragmatist might say that a human being has sovereign rule over the life, death or health of anyone else who resides within their body. End of story.

    All other arguments or debate or legislation or fly-specking or BS about sentience, pain, appearance, heartbeat, rape, incest, age, fatherhood, God, viability, trimesters, conception, genetic infirmity and whatnot is impractical, unrealistic, idealistic.
  • RogueAI
    2.4k
    A pragmatist would say that a fertilized egg is not a person. And also what James Riley said.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Pro Life vs Pro Choicerickyk95

    What is life without choice and what is choice without life? Luckily or not, we can't have, as some like to say, the best of both worlds. Pragmatically speaking, we should actually be examining the metaphysical aspects of the problem - do their truth/falsity in any way affect our lives, what would we do different if they were true/false? Souls?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment