Idealism, Pragmatism, and Faith

What a joy to be back in a place where philosophical blog posts flow directly from mealtime conversations :)… But it was a rather involved conversation, and this is a rather long blog post (to which a second part may follow). So bear with me :).

Recently, discussions of pragmatism have abounded in my general vicinity. Maybe this is because people are just getting ‘round to learning that I happen to have a pragmatic streak. I thought I may as well publish my views on the subject once for all.

For starters, I’ll reproduce a bit of a journal entry on the subject that I wrote over the summer, edited for general consumption :):
I'm something of a pragmatist at heart and I don't like the prevailing idea in our culture that the "good guys" or, perhaps, the "best guys" are idealists. The two are equally valid sides of the same coin. Neither can exist entirely without the other, and one is not morally better than the other. Human beings, in our finite, lopsided fashion, generally prefer one side or the other: some are, like me, more pragmatic, others idealistic... just as we prefer one season over another, the sea or the mountains, or this or that characteristic of God, etc. But even the full coin of idealism and pragmatism together is not sufficient to act rightly, either. There is something more...
The Christian is called neither to idealism nor to pragmatism. We are not supposed to "logic out" the most advantageous route. We are also not supposed to live by the categorical imperatives of the Law. We are told, rather, that the righteous live by faith. Both idealism and pragmatism rely on us and our determinations in the end. Only faith leaves us watching and waiting on God every moment. (Might I suggest Romans 4:13-25 for further, and better :), reading on this subject?)
Where, then, do idealism and pragmatism fall in here? Do we nullify the Law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the Law. And what about our self-interest? God's business in our life is making us more like Christ (and doing the same for others through us). Does that sound like it's not in our interest? To paraphrase, he who would save his idealism or pragmatism will lose it, but he who gives them up for faith will save them...

This is all very well and good philosophically, but how does it work? [Yes, I'm very fond of practicality too :).]

Let’s begin by looking at the example from Serenity. (I like it better than the classic Jew in the closet/Nazi at the door scenario, since it balances life and life, instead of life and lie.) For those you who haven’t seen the movie, it is as follows [those who have can skip to the next paragraph]: The captain and his crew have just robbed an imperial bank. Discovering that evil creatures are in the area, they tell everyone there to stay in the vault to be safe; they themselves run out to their hovercraft to get away. As they try to pull away, a man comes running out of the bank, wanting to come with them and grabbing onto the hovercraft. But the craft can’t take one more and still outrun the evil creatures. So the captain pushes the man off – and he is taken by the creatures and the crew gets away by the skin of their teeth. [There’s a mercy killing in there too… but that can be discussed some other time :).]

From an idealist’s standpoint: there is a categorical obligation to protect life; the man cannot be left to his death, you must bring him along, even if it would result in the death of all. From a pragmatist’s standpoint: the captain is responsible for the well-being of his crew most of all; you must protect them, even if it results in the death of an innocent stranger. In either situation, somebody’s going to die because of your decision, be it everybody or the stranger. So how do you decide?

At about this point in the discussion, Providence was brought up. Which is a good point. We do not live in a world of random chance. Nor do we live in a world in which the “inevitable” always happens. God can intervene (and does) – and in this case, it would have to be nothing short of a miracle.

So, then, have the idealists won? Take the risk, bring the guy aboard, and leave it to God to make sure you all get away? Not necessarily. Actually, no one has “won.” One could just as easily take the pragmatic route, and pray God’s miracle comes in saving the man you’ve just left behind. (After all, the pragmatists don’t want the man to die any more than the idealists all want to be eaten alive.)

You’re going to need faith – faith that God can make sure that everyone comes out alive on the other side and faith to decide which course of action to take. After all, the general equivalence I’ve been arguing for doesn’t necessarily mean that both choices are right in that one instance. God works in mysterious ways, and He sometimes calls us to use particularly one or the other of the two methods. There is Brother Andrew, who was called to one method of Bible smuggling. And there are the countless other Bible smugglers use a more “conventional” method. There is David facing Goliath… and then there’s Ehud facing Eglon.

Let us look to God and God alone for guidance and approval. The rest will fall into place.