The Inadequacies of PRAGMATISM

 

 

Pragmatism is the philosophy of living according to a cost/benefit analysis, without any consideration of unchanging moral truths like, “It is wrong to torture babies.” It is the philosophy of what works and provides benefits. According to the pragmatist, God is not necessary to his calculations. If it provides benefits, then it is “good.”

 

However, a belief like equality cannot be maintained for long without its Biblical foundation, even though it is a useful belief, for now at least. Once, the cost/benefit analysis of its value changes, so too will equality.

One skeptic wrote: “I embrace human primacy, free will, equality, and moral law independently of Biblical teachings and a belief in God. I don't believe that these values are dependent on Christian teachings.” I responded that he could embrace these values but only for pragmatic reasons – that it will provide benefits when we embrace these values:

 

Atheist, humanist, and author of the Humanist Manifesto II, Paul Kurtz affirms that pragmatism – what provides benefits – Is the “only” possible justification for morality:

• How are these principles [of equality, freedom, etc.] to be justified? They are not derived from a divine or natural law nor do they have a special metaphysical [beyond the material world] status. They are rules offered to govern how we shall behave. They can be justified only by reference to their results [benefits]. How are these principles [of equality, freedom, etc.] to be justified? They are not derived from a divine or natural law nor do they have a special metaphysical [beyond the material world] status. They are rules offered to govern how we shall behave. They can be justified only by reference to their results. (Preamble)

This is the position of moral relativism – the denial of any objective moral truths. However, we are all pragmatic. All want benefits from our actions (installing AC or heating at church) and weigh the costs, but principles of objective truth and justice should not be violated in our pursuit of the benefits. Christians must always consider the Biblical basis for our decisions before all else. For example, it might benefit me and my family to lie to a get a needed promotion, but the lie refuses to trust in God’s provisions and deprives those who were more deserving of the promotion.

Here are some problems that the pragmatist will encounter when trying to maintain pragmatism as the foundation of his life:

 

·       Pragmatism enthrones self-interest above all else. Some believe in a Covid Shutdown, while others believe in the freedom of an open economy. There will always be differences of opinion, but pragmatism is unable to resolve them. For some, the threat of Covid is paramount; for others, the threat of losing their business is paramount. Different interests make for an entirely different cost/benefit analysis. Each party is convinced that they know what is best for them.

 

In contrast, the Bible teaches us to put others’ welfare above our own. We may differ about the “hows,” but at least we have a common starting point, a shared value.

 

·       No truth foundation. While the Biblical faith can agree on the primacy of love, pragmatism starts with the “benefits,” but for whom? Those in power interpret their pragmatics benefits as a matter of rewarding those can help keep them in power. Inevitably, history has repeatedly demonstrated that pragmatism not governed by higher principles becomes a matter of force rather than moral reasoning.

 

·       Sometimes it is pragmatic to lie, cheat, and to abuse others. To get a promotion, we might have to demonstrate to the bosses that we will do their bidding, however shady it might be.

 

Pragmatism cannot guarantee positive results. Alfred Dreyfus had been a captain in the French army when they lost the Franco-Prussian war. The French military convicted the Jewish Dreyfus of collaborating with the Germans and sentenced him to life imprisonment. New evidence was found of Dreyfus’ innocence and the case was reopened. However, the new case threatened to be so divisive, that the French pragmatically reasoned that instead of dividing the nations and exposing the French justice system to contempt, it was better to re-convict in innocent man. However, Dreyfus was later exonerated by people who believed that True justice was to be upheld even at the expense pragmatic considerations.

 

·       Not potent enough to stand against our fears and desires. Ted Bundy was a charming law school student who desired to rape and kill. However, he explained that the knowledge that this was an evil desire, held him back, until he discovered evolutionary thinking, which argued in favor of moral relativism. He became convinced the right and wrong were merely evolving human creations. Therefore, they do not exist apart from our thinking. He explained that this gave him the necessary understanding to fulfill his lust for rape and murder. Although we are not all serial rapists and killers, it is inevitable that this same principle will haunt our lives.

·       Schizophrenia. Pragmatism forces us to play “make believe” – that we really do have freewill, that we are equal before the law, that there are injustices, and an objective purpose to live.

 

·       Playing make-believe cannot give us what we and society needs. Eventually, when the mask is removed from this game and we see it for what it is, it will kill any values of honor, integrity, guilt, justice, culpability, and even truth.

 

While the pragmatist claims to believe in the truths of the material world and of science, pragmatism, without objective values, will triumph over science. Even now, pragmatic concerns are commandeering research and publication. Research institutions are forbidding researchers to do research whose findings might negatively impact the institution. Professional publications will often only accept papers whose findings suit their purposes. Scientists are even afraid to speak out against transgenderism lest their careers be jeopardized. In a world where pragmatism reigns so will the cancel culture and political correctness. Only those who believe in objective moral truths will be able to stand.

 

·       Pragmatism cannot sustain the institutions and truths we value. Since it cannot appeal to reason but only the need to play “make-believe,” it must rely upon force. Atheistic-Communistic nations played make-believe that they were pursuing justice and equality, although they lacked any basis to believe in these entities. Therefore, violence put them in power, and genocide kept them there.

 

·       Pragmatism has no ultimate moral standards. Since its values are man-made, they are always relative to the culture, situation, and time. Therefore, it is multicultural and cannot say that one cultural is better than another, since it lacks an ultimate standard of judgment. Consequently, it cannot coherently judge Nazism, abortion, or slavery.

 

 

Is there such a thing as an “enlightened pragmatism,” one that looks at the long-range implications of any choice? For example, even though Bundy didn’t believe in God and objective moral truths, if he had been willing to look at the long-range implications of his choices, he would have seen that his cost/benefit analysis would eventually prove costly.

 

Perhaps! On a theoretical level, if the pragmatist would consider heaven and hell, it would result in repentance and salvation. In this case, pragmatism would lead to the same place of truth. However, this fails to recognize our blind love of the darkness (John 3:19-20).