Pragmatism vs The Truth

[beryllium]

Is there a difference between these? please :-)

[jno]

that's a bit like comparing apples and, say, wallpaper... they're not really in the same line of business. Pragmatism generally involves doing something that's effective and the more usual 'opposite' would be something like idealism, which involves doing what's right rather than what works. (eg to use an extreme example, a pragmatist might use slave labour because it's cheaper, an idealist wouldn't.) But the truth... well, it's much debated but the usual meaning is something along the lines of 'what really happened', which has nothing to do with pragmatism or otherwise.

[beryllium]

Hi jno :-)
I have pragmatism down as: Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences.

Facts. Are they truth? as you state, 'what really happened/happens'

So that is why I want to compare them lol

[jno]

I see what you mean. You could say pragmatism involves dealing with the real world as it is and not trying to change things - as I suggested, in the 19th century some people would use slaves because they were cheap, while others refused because although slavery existed, it seemed morally wrong. But 'pragmatism' refers to a way of living or of acting, whereas 'the truth' is more like a way of describing things; that's why I said you couldn't really compare them.

So you could say 'pragmatism' involves recognising 'the truth' about the way the world runs and making use of it in the most effective manner for whatever your purposes are.

[beryllium]

So, the people that used the slaves were being pragmatic?

The ones that didn't were being moral. Nothing to do with the truth? more ethics? or idealism?

Where does morals fit in with pragmtism?

[jno]

well, I don't think it does really: pragmatism implies taking a stance based not on morals but on how you see the world as it is rather than as you would like it to be. Pragmatists would say, 'The truth is that some people are slaves, and they are cheaper than hiring staff and paying them a decent wage, so I will use them because I will be able to produce my cotton more cheaply and so make more profit.'

(But of course you could also have a moral view that slavery was fine - some devout Christians had slaves, which we would now think outrageous. But I would still call them pragmatists, although the question of whether slavery was 'right' is not one pragmatists would bother with.)

Just to use a more modern example: the USA is worried that countries like Iran and North Korea are trying to develop nuclear weapons. They are threatening Iran with unspecified retaliation but are taking a much less confrontational line with Korea. Why? Because they think starting another war in the Gulf would not add greatly to the upheavals already going on there but starting one in East Asia could set off a huge conflagration - possibly drawing China in on North Korea's side; and the Americans are scared of China.

So they're not taking a moral or idealistic line - which would suggest that all countries are equally right, or equally wrong, in seeking nuclear arms and should be treated equally. They're taking a pragmatic line, which suggests they think they can get away with threatening Iran, but not with threatening Korea.

'The truth' is what they base their actions on: the fact (or in this case the strong suspicion) that these two countries are indeed planning to go nuclear. 'Pragmatism' is how I would describe their response.

[beryllium]

jno? :-) Huge Huge Huge Thanks.

So much for the pragmatic approach over Iraq lol... I'll go with the non cognitivism approach by our leaders then...

Non-cognitivism is a variety of irrealism about ethics with a number of influential variants. Non-cognitivists agree with error theorists that there are no moral properties or moral facts.

Do you think they've been reading this book?

Ways of Worldmaking. Nelson Goodman.

Smiles jno :-)