“Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of those effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” That’s the pragmatic maxim, for Peirce.
In other words, the meaning of an idea can be found by considering what practical consequences we should expect from its being true; the meaning of an idea is the sum of its conceivable practical effects. In the 1878 version of the text, he precedes this definition with an example: “It is foolish for Catholics and Protestants to fancy themselves in disagreement about the elements of the sacrament, if they agree in regard to all their sensible effects, here and hereafter.”
This is curious. Peirce suggests that Catholics and Protestants agree on all their “sensible effects” in this life and the next. However, this raises two distinct questions: first, whether this agreement exists; and second, whether Catholics and Protestants themselves perceive such agreement. What exactly qualifies as “sensible effects, here and hereafter”? For instance, attending different physical churches seems like a sensible difference—something observable in the here and now. Similarly, Catholics organizing themselves into dioceses is another “here and now” sensible effect. The concept of “sensible effects” might imply that Peirce is limiting the term to a specific set of effects he has predefined, which is a controversial move. Logical maxims, moral arguments, and thought experiments, like Peirce’s pragmatist tools, compel us to think critically. This is valuable and can be enjoyable as a mental exercise. However, such tools can also serve as instruments for advancing narratives or achieving outcomes, depending on the context in which they are used.
To summarize, the Pope’s authority and the way Communion is performed are controversial topics. While these disagreements originate in differing beliefs, they result in tangible differences—people attend different churches and interact within distinct communities. These differences have significant and real impacts. It’s unrealistic to completely separate the effects of religious practices from the beliefs that shape them.
Peirce’s debate on “sensible effects” as applied to religious differences is less relevant today. Today, we debate issues that have clear and immediate practical effects. Beliefs about governance, rights, and social values shape sharply divided behaviors—people vote for different parties, consume partisan media, and participate in protests. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, beliefs about vaccines and public health guidelines led to divergent practices: some chose to wear masks and get vaccinated, while others resisted these measures.
Advocates for deregulation argue that reducing government oversight fosters innovation and economic growth, resulting in the proliferation of tech startups or new industries like cryptocurrencies. It creates wealth. It creates a thriving society. On the other hand, critics highlight the risks, pointing to environmental degradation or worker exploitation as practical consequences of insufficient regulation. It creates inequalities. It kills the planet. Today we do not agree on the ‘sensible effects’.