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)
• 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).
