Rational Philosophy

On the philosophy of pragmatism: Or, when concept meet conception.

A zealous, Alabama district attorney has been going after pregnant mothers who abuse drugs. As his statutory weapon Greg L. Gambril uses a law that punishes “chemical endangerment of a child,” which was introduced, primarily, to protect children from exposure to meth labs. “When drugs are introduced in the womb, the child-to-be is endangered,” Mr. Gambril said. “It is what I call a continuing crime.” Gambril betrays no compunction about removing mothers from their babies.

On economic policy, Fed chief Bernanke, once a professor of economics, started out in his new job with a belief in the ability of the markets to respond rationally, and a hands-off approach to new financial instruments and odd turns of events. The real world seems to have influenced Bernanke’s thinking. In recent weeks he’s begun to act in ways that contradict his earlier statements — shoring up the ailing Bear Stearns, cutting rates multiple times, and making risky loans to keep the markets from further floundering.

And, to profanity: both Fox and the FCC seem happy that the Supreme Court will be reviewing the FCC’s attempt to tighten its policies on profanity. The FCC wants to be able to go after the networks for “fleeting expletives.” And the networks want to protect themselves against such actions. This momentous legal event is sparked by expletives uttered by Bono at the 2003 Golden Globes, and by Cher and Nicole Richie during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards. I can’t repeat what they said… Well actually, I guess I can. Bono said “fucking brilliant,” Cher said “Fuck ‘em,” and Nicole Richie said “Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It’s not so fucking simple.”

Richie is the clear winner.

A common aspect to these three stories seems to be the concept of pragmatism. In each one, pragmatism represents the fulcrum around which decisions or choices need to be made.

Pragmatism can be a deceptive concept. It gets bandied about as a compliment. “It was a pragmatic decision,” people say. Or, “he is clearly the more pragmatic.” But pragmatism is in the eye of the beholder. Alabama DA Gambril doubtless believes that he is exhibiting pragmatism by upholding the spirit of the law and very literally introducing separation between children and chemical exposure. Others argue that Gambril’s efforts do more harm than good because they don’t help the mother and separate mother and child during a critical period in the child’s development.

Likewise, the same people who today praise Bernanke for his pragmatism — the jumpy executives fearing collapse — would criticize him if he were to exert greater central control and influence during sunnier times. They see Bernanke as pragmatic because they like what he’s doing.

And I expect that the 550,000 people who’ve complained to the FCC about “fleeting expletives” would praise the pragmatism of the FCC’s new policies, whereas those who got a good giggle out of Nicole Ritchie’s colorful, cow shit complaint probably think that the policies against expletives are already somewhat unpragmatic.

So, can we make a pragmatic decision that isn’t, by definition, subjective?

Unfortunately, as with most things worth doing, it’s not easy. Firstly, it is important to understand the abstract premise against which pragmatic decisions will be judged.

In the case of the Alabama drug convictions, DA Gambril might frame this premise as “protecting children from the adverse effects of illegal drugs.” The mothers and their supporters might frame it as “ensuring what’s best for the child’s welfare.”

Immediately, we see that Gambril’s abstraction represents a somewhat narrower frame of thinking. Protecting children from the adverse affects of illegal drugs is just one factor in a more complex set of factors that may ultimately help not just the children in the cases being considered but also other children (by acting as a deterrent, for instance). We can then immediately say that, at least as far as I’ve framed it, Gambril’s perspective only considers one piece of the overall impact of his actions. He cannot therefore be said to be acting completely pragmatically.

Once we’ve understood the abstract premise, the second step in deciding whether something is pragmatic must be to try to determine whether the action being taken warrants us bending the rules.

Bernanke can’t be in a very happy position. I expect that he’s considered the long term impact of his current actions. And I expect that he’s ideologically uncomfortable with some of the steps he’s taken. I would imagine that Bernanke believes that without the actions he’s taking there is a good chance that the country’s financial systems would have collapsed. I can’t think of a better reason for acting against one’s purist beliefs. The only counterveiling reason would have been if Bernanke could convince himself that ultimately the markets would have been better for off for a little collapsing.

And here we come to a curious quirk of pragmatism: When it is justified, pragmatism should lead us to question the very foundation of the principles we’re bending. Bernanke should be realizing through this muddle that his original beliefs were deficient, that the markets can’t be trusted to be rational and sensible.

Lastly, applying these principles to the FCC versus the networks. The FCC regards its proposed policy change as a pragmatic response to the request for action against fleeting expletives from 550,000 members of the public. But the FCC reveals itself to be thinking unclearly when it says that “the ‘F-word’ in any context ‘inherently has a sexual connotation.’”  I’m perplexed as to how to read a sexual connotation into the use of the word fuck or its derivatives when it’s being applied as an adjective or adverb.

But one also can’t necessarily defend the networks by poking holes in the FCC’s argument. The meta-question here seems to be whether, pragmatically speaking, the use of fleeting expletives is more offensive than not, whether the networks are responsible for fleeting expletives or not, and whether there is a reason to allow the FCC to change its expletive policy.

For more rational, science-based explanations of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.