| Sumario: | While some pragmatists have been content to state their view generally and in opposition to non-pragmatist alternatives, others have defended particular pragmatist principles, such as claiming that the jurisprudential question should be settled by what would eventuate in the best legal doctrine or by the best across-the-board political consequences. First, they say pragmatists offer non-sequiturs in mentioning pragmatic concerns.[21] Second, they say pragmatists engage in wishful thinking.[22] The third worry is that pragmatist, in urging people to adopt first-order jurisprudential claims for practical reasons, necessarily holds a flawed theory of belief-formation. Murphy might even be called the progenitor of pragmatist jurisprudence, for his work, first published in 2001, is one the earliest clear statements of a pragmatist approach to analytic jurisprudence. MEET THE PRAGMATISTS In this section, I highlight the core commitment that all pragmatist jurisprudents share, then I identify key pragmatists and review some details of their positions. While Murphy and Bayón spend time developing specific pragmatist principles by which to assess potential answers to the jurisprudential question, Stoljar and I were more interested to vindicate the pragmatist approach generally.
|
|---|