Pragmatists' earth-bound practicality sometimes causes them to seem callous or amoral, as in the debate over the truth of the statement "Slavery has always been wrong." The "cash value" (William James' telling phrase) of truth is, to pragmatists, a belief that is strong enough that one is willing to act upon it and which turns out in practice to be useful. Beliefs without cash value are abstractions, as when Abraham Lincoln said that the question of whether the Confederate...contiguous land-mass entities were still "states" was an abstract question.
It also seems ironic that one so deserving of the sobriquet "Honest Abe" should be prototype for thinkers, of like honesty, of a school known for the concept of contingent truth. Indeed, one cannot read Lincoln or Rorty, or Dewey, James or Holmes--or Obama--and not believe (strongly enough to act upon it) in their personal honesty.
So too the pragmatists seeming callousness. Magnanimous, kind, empathetic, generous, sensitive: these also characterize Lincoln, Obama, and the others. Holmes, near the end of his life, weeping before Mrs. Felix Frankfurter when he tried to talk about his Civil War experiences; Obama, placing his hand on that of Hillary Clinton in a television interview during their bitter campaign; Lincoln's devastation at the death of his young friend Elmer Ellsworth, the Civil War's first casualty: These are men of deep feeling as well as deep thinking.
When Abraham Lincoln said, as he did, that he believed slavery to be immoral and that the Constitution permitted slavery and that as president he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act because it was constitutional, he was not being intellectually dishonest. It is precisely that pragmatic thought does separate morality from truth, truth being what is "expedient" to believe, "right" being what is expedient to do (James), that makes pragmatists seem callous. How could people not think them callous? How could anyone read that sentence and not think, "Really? That's what truth and right are, the 'expedient?'" "'Warranted assertibility?'" (Dewey) How could anyone read the first sentence in this paragraph and not question Abraham Lincoln's belief? If an act is "morally wrong," we're not supposed to do it, right? Lincoln said he would do it, it was his duty to do it. If there is something that one "hates," you do something about it, don't you? You kill it or stomp it or don't eat it, or throw it away, avoid it, distance yourself from it, but you don't PROTECT it.
There is a problem here. Doesn't the truth hurt sometimes? It's not always "useful" to tell the truth, is it? Arrestees who tell the truth to the police are seldom being useful to their defense. The "right" thing to do can be disagreeable also, can't it? Eat your broccoli. Don't cheat on your spouse. I don't do the first and did do the second, repeatedly. I found it expedient to commit adultery, it pleasured me. It was still wrong. Pragmatism is the only home-grown American philosophy. Look at how American it is! Truth as having "cash value," being "expedient," "useful"...Wait, wait, I'm seeing it--"happy," right? Like in the Declaration of Independence! The truth is that which produces the most happiness. That is what the pragmatic conceptions of truth and righteousness devolve too. That is a debasement of truth and morality.
"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel."
Abraham Lincoln believed in slavery's immorality but his belief did not meet even pragmatism's definition of truth. It was a belief not strongly held enough that he acted upon it. It was not expedient or useful for him to act upon it. His sincere belief in slavery's immorality was an abstraction; it had no cash value:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union by not freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Abraham Lincoln's personal moral greatness did not transfer to great moral leadership. Deliberately so. Lincoln deliberately did not make his presidency a morality-based one.
It also seems ironic that one so deserving of the sobriquet "Honest Abe" should be prototype for thinkers, of like honesty, of a school known for the concept of contingent truth. Indeed, one cannot read Lincoln or Rorty, or Dewey, James or Holmes--or Obama--and not believe (strongly enough to act upon it) in their personal honesty.
So too the pragmatists seeming callousness. Magnanimous, kind, empathetic, generous, sensitive: these also characterize Lincoln, Obama, and the others. Holmes, near the end of his life, weeping before Mrs. Felix Frankfurter when he tried to talk about his Civil War experiences; Obama, placing his hand on that of Hillary Clinton in a television interview during their bitter campaign; Lincoln's devastation at the death of his young friend Elmer Ellsworth, the Civil War's first casualty: These are men of deep feeling as well as deep thinking.
When Abraham Lincoln said, as he did, that he believed slavery to be immoral and that the Constitution permitted slavery and that as president he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act because it was constitutional, he was not being intellectually dishonest. It is precisely that pragmatic thought does separate morality from truth, truth being what is "expedient" to believe, "right" being what is expedient to do (James), that makes pragmatists seem callous. How could people not think them callous? How could anyone read that sentence and not think, "Really? That's what truth and right are, the 'expedient?'" "'Warranted assertibility?'" (Dewey) How could anyone read the first sentence in this paragraph and not question Abraham Lincoln's belief? If an act is "morally wrong," we're not supposed to do it, right? Lincoln said he would do it, it was his duty to do it. If there is something that one "hates," you do something about it, don't you? You kill it or stomp it or don't eat it, or throw it away, avoid it, distance yourself from it, but you don't PROTECT it.
There is a problem here. Doesn't the truth hurt sometimes? It's not always "useful" to tell the truth, is it? Arrestees who tell the truth to the police are seldom being useful to their defense. The "right" thing to do can be disagreeable also, can't it? Eat your broccoli. Don't cheat on your spouse. I don't do the first and did do the second, repeatedly. I found it expedient to commit adultery, it pleasured me. It was still wrong. Pragmatism is the only home-grown American philosophy. Look at how American it is! Truth as having "cash value," being "expedient," "useful"...Wait, wait, I'm seeing it--"happy," right? Like in the Declaration of Independence! The truth is that which produces the most happiness. That is what the pragmatic conceptions of truth and righteousness devolve too. That is a debasement of truth and morality.
"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel."
Abraham Lincoln believed in slavery's immorality but his belief did not meet even pragmatism's definition of truth. It was a belief not strongly held enough that he acted upon it. It was not expedient or useful for him to act upon it. His sincere belief in slavery's immorality was an abstraction; it had no cash value:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union by not freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Abraham Lincoln's personal moral greatness did not transfer to great moral leadership. Deliberately so. Lincoln deliberately did not make his presidency a morality-based one.
