Idealism v Pragmatism

            Certainly the difference between Idealism and Pragmatism is based more on how one begins to believe things as opposed to what it is that these different philosophers believe.  For instance, an Idealist and a Pragmatist may agree upon believing that the death penalty should be abolished.  The Idealist may believe such because of the belief that life is sacred and the taking of another human life fails to respect the sanctity of human life.  The Pragmatist may disagree with the death penalty because of the many definitive studies on the futility of the death penalty as a deterrent.  The fact Idealists and Pragmatists agree upon the final question of not supporting the death penalty as a form of punishment hardly means that they agree philosophically.  This could be a political decision that allows disparate forces to join. It is more important to understand thatignoring the philosophical differences means that one will not convince the other of assuming a more meaningful position.  Granted the meaningfulness may be relative, but no harm can come from have a better understanding of one another’s position. 

            Some may argue that as long as the Idealist and Pragmatist can agree and join political forces to oppose the death penalty, how they got to believe what they believe is not important.  For the philosopher opposing the death penalty is not the real issue.  This may be all the social activist is concerned about, but the Criminal Justice professional needs to have a more profound philosophical understanding.  Understanding why one opposes any legal or illegal action is essential to resolving differences.   One of the reasons that Idealists and Pragmatists and others argue so vociferously is not for philosophical reasons, but for the psychological reason, to be understood.  Respecting one another’s desire to be understood one must be open the philosophical roots of another’s position even if the other cannot articulate them or understand them.