THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF ALL CONTRIBUTORS AND EACH TEAM MEMBER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FACTS AND OPINIONS CONTAINED IN HIS POST.

CLICK FLAGS FOR PAGE TRANSLATION OPTIONS

  Google  
           Search ESPRESSO ROAST Search WWW

Monday, October 30, 2006

The Problem of Pragmatism

Pragmatism, the belief that "whatever works" is what should be adopted, is a very problematic philosophy to adopt. Obviously, many of us are pragmatists at certain points as we should be so that particular jobs or functions can be accomplished in a given time. The problem, though, comes when Pragmatism is adopted as our over-arching philosophy of life at the expense of other ethical and moral considerations...even if it is just one of many primary philosophical bents.

Case in point: Recently, I was reading through various news reports and came across the transcript of conservative analyst Bill O'Reilly's take on the Michael J. Fox/Rush Limbaugh controversy. In it, Mr. O'Reilly attempts to enlighten us on the underlying problem, define the argument, and offer a "clear-headed" response:
"On the Fox side, you have Americans who believe it is morally right to create and then destroy in research life in pursuit of curing terrible afflictions. The Limbaugh side says it is morally wrong to interfere with nature and terminate a potential human being, even in its initial stages.

Now it all comes down to what you believe. Nobody can win the debate. You either believe life begins at conception or you don't. And the polls say Americans are about equally divided on the issue."
OK, we can make an argument here on the basis of moral relativism if we wanted to, but that's not the point right now. As far as what O'Reilly has said, I agree, it does come down to what you believe and Americans are deeply divided. It is what he said next that reveals the heart and soul of what many Americans have adopted in Pragmatism...even many conservatives like O'Reilly:

What's really terrible about the situation is that there's no resolution. Nobody knows whether embryonic stem cell research will eventually cure anything and nobody knows whether adult stem cell lines will turn out to be effective or not.

Let me repeat that: nobody knows.

So when you hear people say embryonic stem cell research is a lock to cure paralysis and Parkinson's, that's simply not true. If it were a sure thing, I believe most Americans would immediately get behind it.

So, what is the problem with embryonic stem cell research? Is it that it truly is morally wrong? Is it that embryonic stem cell research destroys life? Is it that the procedure endorses creating life only to destroy it for potential gain? Not according to Mr. O'Reilly. It's simply that we do not know. Otherwise, "most Americans would immediately get behind it."

What's the problem with pragmatism? It changes our views to be that which "works" no matter the cost and true morality takes a back seat as we set aside what is objectively right and wrong for those things which seem right in our own eyes.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Labels:

posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 10/30/2006 06:45:00 AM |  

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Pearcey Report

My Ecosystem Details

© 2007 Espresso Roast Blog - All Rights Reserved