Posted: Jul 19, 2019 1:47 am
How I see pragmatism in terms of politics.
Basically, I see pragmatism as the complement of principle, that is to say how far you are willing to take an ideal in the real world. I think it's easiest to take a specific issue, let's say control of recreational drugs.
Principled argument A: Illegal drugs harm the people who consume them. Many get addicted and lose control of their drug taking habit and it can have a serious negative impact on their lives. It is the duty of government to protect people from these harms.
Principled argument B: Illegal drugs often give pleasure to the people who consume them. Most of these people do not lose control of their habit and enjoy their drug use. The government has no right to interfere with people's personal lives when they aren't affecting others, even if those people choose to harm themselves.
Evidential argument: The amount of harm caused by drugs varies from substance to substance, there are differences in the side effects, health consequences, social consequences and addiction rates. Research shows that (insert proper consensus of research opinion here). Therefore it may be the case that some substances should be controlled and others not, the ones that should be first in the line for being controlled are the ones that inflict the most harm for the least benefit.
Pragmatic argument: Regardless of the principles behind prohibition people take drugs anyway. By legalising them you may restrict the harm caused by stigma and the tax evasion caused by the drugs being moved on the black market, which could be used to fund education and rehab. You will free up police and court time for more serious offences and avoid unintended consequences of prohibition like drug money going to gangs involved in other crimes such as human trafficking, prostitution or weapons smuggling.
Pragmatism is really tested when it's in opposition to principle - that is to say a pragmatist is less guided by their core ideology and more willing to muddle through. A pragmatist on drug issues might also take into account arguments in the other direction (e.g. a country where legalisation of drugs was tried, but also caused inintended consequences).
Is this something like what you have in mind?
Basically, I see pragmatism as the complement of principle, that is to say how far you are willing to take an ideal in the real world. I think it's easiest to take a specific issue, let's say control of recreational drugs.
Principled argument A: Illegal drugs harm the people who consume them. Many get addicted and lose control of their drug taking habit and it can have a serious negative impact on their lives. It is the duty of government to protect people from these harms.
Principled argument B: Illegal drugs often give pleasure to the people who consume them. Most of these people do not lose control of their habit and enjoy their drug use. The government has no right to interfere with people's personal lives when they aren't affecting others, even if those people choose to harm themselves.
Evidential argument: The amount of harm caused by drugs varies from substance to substance, there are differences in the side effects, health consequences, social consequences and addiction rates. Research shows that (insert proper consensus of research opinion here). Therefore it may be the case that some substances should be controlled and others not, the ones that should be first in the line for being controlled are the ones that inflict the most harm for the least benefit.
Pragmatic argument: Regardless of the principles behind prohibition people take drugs anyway. By legalising them you may restrict the harm caused by stigma and the tax evasion caused by the drugs being moved on the black market, which could be used to fund education and rehab. You will free up police and court time for more serious offences and avoid unintended consequences of prohibition like drug money going to gangs involved in other crimes such as human trafficking, prostitution or weapons smuggling.
Pragmatism is really tested when it's in opposition to principle - that is to say a pragmatist is less guided by their core ideology and more willing to muddle through. A pragmatist on drug issues might also take into account arguments in the other direction (e.g. a country where legalisation of drugs was tried, but also caused inintended consequences).
Is this something like what you have in mind?