The problem with pragmatism

The problem I have with pragmatism is that it flips ethics on its head. It takes practicality as the standard – that is ‘whatever works’, giving rise to the adage ‘if it works don’t fix it’. But works by what standard? So your politics is kind of running ethics. Something has to ‘work’ or be good by some standard of value. Rand links this to the science of human nature, and in so doing offers a metaphysical and epistemological justification for her ethics. It tends to be at ethics where I disagree with her…and that arises because of differences on our understanding of psychology. However I do regard her protégé Nathaniel Branden ‘The Psychology of Self Esteem’ as very good on this subject.
Reading a blog post by Josh at www.outlandishjosh.com who cites philosopher Richard Rorty, suggests that “Metaphysical debates — are we really alive? what is truth? — are largely pointless”. Well they aren’t, even though most people take them for granted, since it’s the very reason that pragmatists flip philosophy on its head. What would prompt a person who thinks you can’t be certain or know the nature of reality to profess knowledge of ethics.
Josh also says some interesting things, I guess again citing Richard Rorty or John Dewey, the more notorious American pragmatist:

1. “The concept of a Absolute Truth (or, in an older context, God), in addition to being fruitless to pursue, is often really a dodge for authoritarianism”. Coincidentally, people tend to appeal to God or Absolute Truth when it supports their side in an argument”
I would argue that authoritarian actually stems from an attempt for self-mastery over others, and that comes from a loathing of human nature, a belief that you can’t know. Science of course is a slap in the face of that thinking, and can be hardly be regarded as an authoritarian pursuit, notwithstanding the contradictions of a great many scientists. Science is very much still ‘mastery’ of facts of reality not of or over people. Science presupposes an objective world, pragmatism a subjective one. One wonders how Dewey and other pragmatists can even bother writing a philosophical treatise given their ardent skepticism…since how can they know at all, certain of themselves. The last point “people tend to appeal to God or Absolute Truth when it supports their side in an argument” fails to appreciate the dichotomy raised above. Actually people lacking self-mastery, that is confidence in their own judgement, tend to impose their judgement on others. Its no accident that they tend to loath logic and egoism….yet usurp others right to self-reliance.

2. To the extent that we ever know Truth, we do so via a social process of consensus. Even hard science works this way (peer review), so we should embrace this concept, and resist the notion that this consensus can be created by an individual and enforced through the power of it’s own (self-referential) validity ala Monotheism or Fascism.
Actually it would appear that a great deal of science does ‘think collectively’, which explains why there is a great deal of ‘bad science’ being published. But remember that whilst science does seek ‘peer review’ and scientists do collaborate, its not for collective truth, but for validation. Scientists collaborate not because their consciousness needs to plug into another, but because groups have more resources. At the end of the day a mind is autonomous. Some ‘one’ has an insight, others grasp it because they accept an objective reality, others refute it because they too recognise an objective reality. Everyone has the capacity to know or err in that task. The better you think, the better prepared you are for life.

3. Democracy is better, both in terms of individual liberty and in terms of effectiveness in producing human happiness. Per utilitarianism, maximizing human happiness is really the only outcome that makes sense to pursue.
Democracy is to politics like markets are to economy….they are only as strong as the weakest participants. Given that most people are poorly trained in the art of thinking, we tend to get poor results from democracy. So rather than reason (objectivity or scientific method) being the standard of value, we have politicians appealing to fear, emotion, even faith. Any philosophy that subjugates a person’s logic to the fears, whims or emotions of others is on a course towards collectivism. The practicality of science and economy are the only obstacles to authoritarianism. Utilitarianism is a collectivist philosophy that subjugates the rights of individuals to those that profess to represent ‘society’. The lack of sustainable support for politicians suggests that’s a rare best, and in itself still lacks objective validity. But that’s ok if their candidate can’t impose their will on others.

4. Likewise, the only meaningful definition of Reason is, “can you participate in the inter-subjective process of communal inquiry as to how to maximize human happiness?” The idea that Reason is aligned with Absolute Truth or God is another rabbit-hole/authoritarian danger zone.
Well how is he going to prove it? How can he assert anything? Even if collective support was a basis for truth, how could it be revered as such since it has to start with one consciousness. This is the basis of authoritarianism.

Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard. It usually is...the question is whether its good or bad reasoning....make it pertain to reality. The best way of doing that is to provide examples.