"There is an eternal dispute between those who imagine the world to suit their policy, and those who correct their policy to suit the realities of the world." - Albert Sorel

Legislatively speaking, which do you see yourself as?

Create laws which reflect your ideals and demand people comply?
Create laws which take the reality of the situation into account, and consider the pragmatic outcome of the law?

Do what works well for all, avoid what doesn't.
To find out make your best guess, measure, evaluate, verify and correct.

Do what works well for all, avoid what doesn't.
To find out make your best guess, measure, evaluate, verify and correct.

Sounds like a pragmatic approach to me.
Do you agree?

Pragmatist.
You can't legislate human nature out of existence any more than you can the laws of Physics.

Idealism is nice for decorating the walls with slogans, but pragmatism gets bread on the table.

Pragmatism, but there is always room for some idealism. Like social issues.

Pragmatist. I would like to proffer that one man's idealism IS another man's pragmatism.

:) Guess.

Legislatively speaking, which do you see yourself as?

Create laws which reflect your ideals and demand people comply?
Create laws which take the reality of the situation into account, and consider the pragmatic outcome of the law?

Why can't we be both? On some issues, we're idealists. On other issues, we're pragmatists. Yeah, why not both?

I don't believe, however, that you can actually mix the two on a particular issue. Or if you do, then you're most certainly giving up some or all of the idealism.

Baron Max

I'm a pragmatist in my idealism and an idealist in my pragmatism.

When I was young and naive I was an idealist. Now I'm old and naive, and I'm a pragmatist...:D

Pragmatism, but there is always room for some idealism. Like social issues.

I think social issues are the worst example of when to legislate idealistically.

When I was young and naive I was an idealist. Now I'm old and naive, and I'm a pragmatist...:D

Yep, I was that way, too, althought perhaps not so much idealistic as you.

But I worked my butt off trying to save the wild mustangs on the western plains. And we "succeeded" ...only to find out a couple of years later that the increasing population of horses ate up all the food, and the horses were all starving to death!! Yeah, really cured me of looking at the world through rose-colored glasses.

Baron Max

"There is an eternal dispute between those who imagine the world to suit their policy, and those who correct their policy to suit the realities of the world." - Albert Sorel

Legislatively speaking, which do you see yourself as?

Create laws which reflect your ideals and demand people comply?
Create laws which take the reality of the situation into account, and consider the pragmatic outcome of the law?

Can't idealism be an intuitive pragmatism, at least in certain cases?
This issue reminds me of the split between the deontologists and the consequentialists in moral issues. The former have rules - take the ten commandments - the latter try to see what will happen. The weakness of the utilitarian approach - or, better put, something consequentialists seem to assume is that you can track all the consequences of an act. IOW people who come up with moral rules may actually intuit consequences that are not so clear to the little Newtonian rational mind.

You can see the weakness of the consequentialist position around issues like rights to privacy. Conservatives on this issue often say 'if you have nothing to hide....' (you know the drill) because the negative consequences can be hard to track. The right to privacy person - an idealist, perhaps - will have to resort to 'potiential future totalitarian take overs' to begin to reach the consequntialists, though in fact, their idealism may actually be based in more immediate, but hard to quantify, concerns, that we can dismiss as idealism, but......

perhaps to our detriment.

All this is very nice, but unfortunately it opens the door to people who want to attack homosexuality, for example, because they 'sense' in their 'idealism' consequences that pragmatists - who tend to talk about two adults, their business, etc. - are supposedly not aware of.

And that excuse I have created for them - that they actually are aware, intuitively of consequences - in their seemingly random, unjustified rules - that the consequentialists are not aware of, is certainly not my intent.

Nevertheless I think we do have to leave the door open to the possibility that idealism has insights the pragmatists will miss.

So I am a partial idealist because of pragmatic concerns. But in turn, much of my live and let live pragmatism is idealistic at root and not always pragmatic.

Can't idealism be an intuitive pragmatism, at least in certain cases?

Actually I like that in many ways, and it answers a lot of questions for me. And you did explain it quite well, I might add.

But don't you see "idealism" as going the step or steps further than just intuitive pragmatism? I.e., a simple "Thou shall not kill" is, to me, pretty damned intuitive for a small, close group of people believing the same thing. But, ...notice that even those people will skirt that idealism when they're attacked or someone they love is attacked. So "Thou shall not kill" started out as an intuitive ideal, but is then modified in times of stress or attack.

I see the term "idealism" as the strict adherence to something like "Thou shall not kill" ....and adhere to it even if all of your family is raped and killed, and all your friends are raped and killed. Idealism is ..no matter what happens in life ..."Thou shall not kill".

In other words, I don't think it's an "idealism" if one has to modify that ideal to suit every single situation that comes along. "Thou shall not kill ....except if you're attack, or if your family is attacked, or if your friends are attacked, or if...." See? How can we call that an ideal?

Have I explained myself well enough? I mean, it's even a little confusing to me!! :)

Baron Max

I didn't want to bring this up because I don't want to derail this thread into a fit of arguments over abortion.
If you can, please see this as an abstract example, and do not argue the different sides of abortion.

I said this in a PM last night:

I think to find a pragmatic approach, one must first find the ideal.
When issues of legislation are concerned, however, an idealistic approach is ineffective and often dangerous and fascist.
Take abortion for example.
Nearly everyone agrees there should be as few abortions as possible.
One side takes the approach of addressing the causees of unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies and attempts to adrress those problems. Pragmatism.
The other side takes the approach of outlawing abortion. Idealism.
The idealsitic approach to this problem will likely not only not stop abortions, it will end up endangering the lives of the fetuses AND mothers (by driving it underground) and will likely end up in MORE abotions because the causes for unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies go ignored.

I think to find a pragmatic approach, one must first find the ideal.

Geez, I think it's exactly the other way around. I don't think any cave man thought about "Thou shall not kill thy fellow cave men" until and after one of them actually was murdered. Why would they?

As to your continued discussion about abortion, I think you can readily see that what I've stated before, pragmatism and idealism can't mix, is true. And all to often, mixing pragmatic and idealist approaches is exactly what congress continues to try to do. Won't work, never will work.

What I have a difficult time with is "modifying" ideals ...and that's what so many people attempt to do. If an ideal is an ideal, then by doing anything to it, it's no longer an "ideal".

Baron Max

Geez, I think it's exactly the other way around. I don't think any cave man thought about "Thou shall not kill thy fellow cave men" until and after one of them actually was murdered. Why would they?
At the same time, if you dont define what you want your ideal to be, how can you take pragmatic steps to approach that ideal?

As to your continued discussion about abortion, I think you can readily see that what I've stated before, pragmatism and idealism can't mix, is true. And all to often, mixing pragmatic and idealist approaches is exactly what congress continues to try to do. Won't work, never will work.
I agree.

What I have a difficult time with is "modifying" ideals ...and that's what so many people attempt to do. If an ideal is an ideal, then by doing anything to it, it's no longer an "ideal".
Again, I agree.

As I have said in the past:
A goal is something which you intend to achieve.
An ideal is a distant star, which guides your way there.

Besides, ideals are, by their vary nature, exclusive and do not lend themselves to compromise and cooperation.

The goal of legislation should be to encompass as many common goals as possible - not to grant one group's ideals and stick its tongue out at the other group.

At the same time, if you dont define what you want your ideal to be, how can you take pragmatic steps to approach that ideal?

Oh, hell, I don't know! Perhaps with just little baby steps until it finally occurs to you that ...."Hey, I think that's an ideal?!" I can imagine it starting with simple concepts of a pragmatic nature ..."Hey, don't kill family members", then it becomes "Hey, don't kill tribal members" and then progresses to the impossible ideal of "Hey, don't kill anyone or anything".

Besides, ideals are, by their vary nature, exclusive and do not lend themselves to compromise and cooperation.

Exactly. And that's why I can never be an idealist ...it's simply too confining to be a workable objective in the world of humans. And as I've said many times before, ...ideals are only for talking about with friends, not for applying to the human world. I do enjoy discussing ideals, ethics, morals, etc, but by the same token, I know that it's just talk and means nothing in the end.

Baron Max

I see the term "idealism" as the strict adherence to something like "Thou shall not kill" ....and adhere to it even if all of your family is raped and killed, and all your friends are raped and killed. Idealism is ..no matter what happens in life ..."Thou shall not kill".We're each going to draw the line in different places. Perhaps to a member of a dueling society, you would seem like an idealist. They are willing to fight to the death if someone does not address them in the correct manner, while you might need something you consider more important. Or perhaps they seem like idealists to you. Their 'honor' and the ideal of it makes them do things which clash with your pragmatism (or other ideals).

I mean I get your point, and I think it is a good one, even if you and I might draw out lines in different places.

In other words, I don't think it's an "idealism" if one has to modify that ideal to suit every single situation that comes along. "Thou shall not kill ....except if you're attack, or if your family is attacked, or if your friends are attacked, or if...." See? How can we call that an ideal? Again, to many an ideal like yours - 'I will not kill unless it saves lives' (as an example) - might seem extreme.

I think it gets confusing because idealists do look at practical matters. If you have an ideal about people not suffering needlessly (or at all) you have to look at the real world and consquences to determine if you are living up to your ideal. And most pragmatists have ideals. I mean pretty much every pragmatist values human life.

But I don't think ideals have to be so divorced and simple. I think an ideal can be nuanced.

I also think that idealists are also often looking at things over longer periods of time than pragmatists.

Ghandi lining up Indians to be beaten to the ground in his non-violent idealism. short term, a disaster. The British were kicking Indian ass and not getting the slightest bit of the licking they deserved. But Ghandi had faith in his ideal and it worked out.

One thing idealists depend on is that causes outside their control - God, the awakening of the masses, the spirit in history - will 'respond' to the idealistic behavior and bring justices or goodness.

(I am not saying they are right about this, but I think there is a different sense of time involved. Of course some idealists believe in an afterlife or future lives and it gets more complicated. But notice if one is doing things for certain rewards, later, you are a pragmatist, or you can be.)

We're each going to draw the line in different places. ....
I mean I get your point, and I think it is a good one, even if you and I might draw out lines in different places.
But I don't think ideals have to be so divorced and simple. I think an ideal can be nuanced.

Hmm, I don't know. I think I see "ideals" as absolutes, not something that anyone can modify whenever they want, or change to suit their situations.

I mean, if "ideals" were so easily changed person-to-person, or situation-to-situation, then how can they be called "ideals"? Wouldn't they just be called "rules" or "laws"?

I do understand, mostly, what you're saying and that is a lot like it is in the real world. But I think it's wrong to call some or most of those "social rules" as ..."ideals". And maybe that's where I have a falling out with others when discussing "ideals" ...I think of them as absolutes.

Baron Max