Theory of normative philosophical ethics and meta-ethics
Pragmatic ethics was discussed byJohn Dewey (pictured at theUniversity of Chicago in 1902, before his major works on pragmatic ethics were published).
Pragmatic ethics is a theory ofnormativephilosophicalethics andmeta-ethics that is associated withpragmatism, a philosophical movement that developed around the turn of the 20th century.[1][2] Ethical pragmatists such asJohn Dewey believe that some societies haveprogressed morally in much the way they have attained progress inscience. Scientists can pursueinquiry into thetruth of ahypothesis andaccept the hypothesis, in the sense that they act as though the hypothesis were true; nonetheless, they think thatfuture generations can advance science, and thus future generations can refine or replace (at least some of) their accepted hypotheses. Similarly, ethical pragmatists think that norms, principles, and moral criteria are likely to be improved as a result ofinquiry.
Martin Benjamin usedNeurath's boat as an analogy for pragmatic ethics, likening the gradual change of ethical norms to the reconstruction of a ship at sea by its sailors.[3]
Much as it is appropriate for scientists to act as though a hypothesis were true despite expecting future inquiry to supplant it, ethical pragmatists acknowledge that it can be appropriate to practice a variety of other normative approaches (e.g.consequentialism,deontological ethics, andvirtue ethics), yet acknowledge the need for mechanisms that allow people to advance beyond such approaches, a freedom for discourse which does not take any such theory as assumed.[4] Thus, aimed atsocial innovation, thepractice of pragmatic ethics supplements the practice of other normative approaches with whatJohn Stuart Mill called "experiments in living".[5][6][1]
Pragmatic ethics also differs from other normative approachestheoretically, according toHugh LaFollette:[1]
It focuses on society, rather than on lone individuals, as the entity that achievesmorality.[1] In Dewey's words, "all conduct is ... social".[7]
It does not hold any known moral criteria as beyond potential for revision.[1] Pragmatic ethics may be misunderstood asrelativist, as failing to be objective,[1] but pragmatists object to this critique on grounds that the same could be said of science, yetinductive andhypothetico-deductive science is ourepistemological standard.[8] Ethical pragmatists can maintain that their endeavor, like inquiry in science, is objective on the grounds that it converges towards something objective (a thesis calledPeircean realism named afterC. S. Peirce).[9]
It allows that a moral judgment may be accepted in one age of a given society, even though it will cease to be accepted after that societymorally progresses (or may already be rejected in another society).[1] The change in moral judgments aboutslavery that led to theabolition of slavery is an example of the improvement of moral judgments through moral inquiry and advocacy.[10]
Barry Kroll, commenting on the pragmatic ethics ofAnthony Weston, noted that pragmatic ethics emphasizes the complexity of problems and the many differentvalues that may be involved in an ethical issue or situation, without suppressing the conflicts between such values.[11]
Pragmatic ethics has been criticized for conflatingdescriptive ethics withnormative ethics, as describing the way peopledo make moral judgments rather than the way theyshould make them, or in other words for lacking normative standards.[12] While some ethical pragmatists may have avoided the distinction between normative and descriptive truth, the theory of pragmatic ethics itself does not conflate them any more than science conflates truth about its subject matter with current opinion about it; in pragmatic ethics as in science, "truth emerges from the self-correction of error through a sufficiently long process of inquiry".[4] A normative criterion that many pragmatists emphasize is the degree to which the process of social learning isdeliberatively democratic:[13] "whiledeontologists focus on moral duties and obligations andutilitarians on the greatest happiness of the greatest number, pragmatists concentrate on coexistence and cooperation".[14]
In Tim Dean's account, moral ecology is a variation of pragmatic ethics that additionally supposes that morality evolves like anecosystem, and ethical practice should therefore include strategies analogous to those ofecosystem management, such as protecting a degree of moral diversity.[15][16] The term "moral ecology" has been used since at least 1985 to imply asymbiosis whereby the viability of any existing moral approach would be diminished by the destruction of all alternative approaches.[17][18] Dean theorized that humans take diverse approaches to morality, and suchpolymorphism gives humanityresilience against a wider range of situations and environments, which makes moral diversity a natural consequence offrequency-dependent selection.[19][20]
Hertzke, Allen D.; McRorie, Chris (1998). "The concept of moral ecology". In Lawler, Peter Augustine; McConkey, Dale (eds.).Community and political thought today. Westort, CT:Praeger. pp. 1–26.ISBN9780275960964.OCLC38732164.
Kroll, Barry M. (Autumn 1997). "Arguing about public issues: what can we learn from practical ethics?".Rhetoric Review.16 (1):105–119.doi:10.1080/07350199709389083.JSTOR465966.
