Epistemology: Pragmatism and Moral Truth

Philosophers, since time immemorial, have been at a conundrum in defining the truth. Pragmatic theories have been at the frontline by proposing that true beliefs will be accepted “at the end of an inquiry.” Although the pragmatic theories concentrate on connecting the truth and epistemic practices, the truth can be defined in terms of utility. The epistemic practices considered include inquiry and assertion, statements useful to believe. Since knowledge is defined as a “justified true belief,” it is essential to determine a true proposition. The correspondence theory help determines a true proposition. Various scholars have criticized pragmatic theories of truth, and the noncontradictory criticism is the strongest while the belief system outcome criticism is the weakest.

Critics Repeated in the Three Items

Bertrand Russell criticized James William’s pragmatic theory of truth in various dimensions. According to James, true ideas help people get into satisfactory relations with other parts of their experiences and summarize them (Zhang, 2021). Russell argued that James’ theory made the pragmatic the essence of truth (Douglas, 2005). For instance, if the Theravada Buddhist truth-claims correspond with orthodox Christian truth-claims, one would conclude that the views deny the correspondence of truth (Douglas, 2005). Russell further rejects James’ theory by asserting that its outcomes’ usefulness cannot determine truth. For instance, statements such as “other children indeed exist” and “it is useful to believe that other children exist” would lose their true meaning if viewed equally, according to James’ theory.

Furthermore, the pragmatic theory is criticized against the concept that a true statement cannot be measured by its usefulness to a person or a group. Therefore, the utility concept of pragmatic theory negates the absence of a logical connection between an individual’s and a group’s perspective of “success” and what is objectively true (Dew & Foreman, 2020). True beliefs often cause chaos and hurt, while false beliefs might help someone get through a difficult situation. For instance, children can be made believe that a lion would eat them if they sneak out of school. The false belief helps the children avoid the dangers of sneaking out of school.

The Strongest Criticism

In my view, the strongest criticism of the pragmatic theory is the problem that the theory violates the noncontradiction law. According to Dew and Foreman, two statements cannot be equal simultaneously, as propounded by William James (2020). Although the theory suggests that something is true if it works, a belief system is relative. Therefore, what Christians believe cannot contradict Muslims or Buddhists. A relative belief system allows freedom of expression without interference by other belief systems. Therefore, the noncontradiction criticism is the strongest criticism of the pragmatic theory of truth.

The Weakest Criticism

In my view, the weakest criticism suggests that there is a logical connection between a person’s and a group’s perspective of “success” and what is objectively true. While the criticism suggests that true beliefs can cause chaos and false beliefs can cause success, it is difficult to predict the outcome of any belief. For instance, some true beliefs have caused success, and false beliefs have caused chaos. Furthermore, the presence or absence of a logical connection between individuals is situational. There are instances when a person may hold a similar belief with others, and there are instances when someone may have a contradicting belief against others. Therefore, the presence or absence of a logical connection between an individual’s belief in success or what is objectively true is relative.

References

Dew Jr, J. K., & Foreman, M. W. (2020). How do we know? An introduction to epistemology. InterVarsity Press.

Douglas, G. (2005). Some Problems with Pragmatism. Bethinking.org. Web.

Zhang, T. (2021). A Defense of William James on Moral Truth. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9(6), 1-13. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2023, March 1). Epistemology: Pragmatism and Moral Truth. https://studycorgi.com/epistemology-pragmatism-and-moral-truth/

Work Cited

"Epistemology: Pragmatism and Moral Truth." StudyCorgi, 1 Mar. 2023, studycorgi.com/epistemology-pragmatism-and-moral-truth/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

References

StudyCorgi. (2023) 'Epistemology: Pragmatism and Moral Truth'. 1 March.

1. StudyCorgi. "Epistemology: Pragmatism and Moral Truth." March 1, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/epistemology-pragmatism-and-moral-truth/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Epistemology: Pragmatism and Moral Truth." March 1, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/epistemology-pragmatism-and-moral-truth/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2023. "Epistemology: Pragmatism and Moral Truth." March 1, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/epistemology-pragmatism-and-moral-truth/.

This paper, “Epistemology: Pragmatism and Moral Truth”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal. Please use the “Donate your paper” form to submit an essay.