Are Pragmatists Always the Reasonable Ones in Decision Making?

Introduction

Typically, pragmatists are seen as the reasonable ones when it comes to decision making. They emphasize practicality and balance over rigid principles. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes a pragmatist’s approach can lead to unfortunate outcomes, especially in extreme situations.

Most of the Time, Pragmatists Are Reasonable

One common scenario where pragmatists are the preferable decision-makers is when there is a need for a recovery budget. For instance, during the aftermath of the Covids (presumably a hypothetical event), a conservative might vehemently oppose a socialist’s plan, and an unbiased, practical individual will often be the most rational person to mediate and streamline the process.

Additionally, a pragmatist who focuses on solving problems without being bogged down by politics can be highly effective in complex situations. However, this is not to say that every pragmatist is always wise. Sometimes, a pragmatic approach can be justified in the short term but may have severe long-term consequences.

Pragmatism vs. Principles

The aforementioned scenario highlights a key difference between pragmatism and principled decision-making. Pragmatism often dismisses absolute principles and standards. For example, in a situation where rules can be broken to achieve a more beneficial outcome, pragmatism might be employed. However, this can lead to ignoring fundamental ethics and morals.

A notable quote from Ayn Rand’s lexicon emphasizes this point:

“[The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works and its validity can be judged only by its consequences—that no facts can be known with certainty in advance and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb—that reality is not firm but fluid and “indeterminate” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness between the perceived and the perceiver there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience” and whatever one wishes to be true is true whatever one wishes to exist does exist provided it works or makes one feel better.”

This explanation underscores how pragmatism can lead to a relativistic view of truth and reality, which, while flexible, can also justify poor ethical choices.

The Limitations of Pragmatism

Despite the practical benefits of pragmatism, it often falls short in situations where long-term consequences are crucial. For instance, if a fire breaks out, a pragmatic response might be to do nothing and allow it to spread. This kind of action can result in massive damage and loss of life, as evidenced by the potential harm to children who might be caught inside.

The lesson here is that what is pragmatic in the short run might not be the most thoughtful or rational choice in the long run. True wisdom involves balancing short-term pragmatism with long-term sustainability and ethical considerations.

Conclusion

While pragmatists are often the reasonable ones in decision making, their approach is not without limitations. It’s crucial to recognize when a pragmatic solution might be inferior to a more idealistic or ethical one. Decision-makers must weigh the immediate benefits against the potential long-term repercussions and strive for a balanced approach that aligns with both practicality and morality.

Additional Reading

For those interested in further exploring the complexities of pragmatism and decision-making, consider reading:

“The Ayn Rand Lexicon: An Concepts, Terms, and Ideas” “On Pragmatism in Philosophy and Politics by John Dewey”

These resources offer deeper insights into the philosophical underpinnings and practical applications of pragmatism.