According to Rorty, why do traditional ethicists find pragmatism disturbingThis is a discussion question for class

The manner in which Rorty defines traditional pragmatism
without a set of established, totalizing principles might be one reason why traditional
ethicists could find it disturbing.  For Rorty, pragmatism rejects the typical hierarchy
of philosophical establishment because it seeks to establish human beings on a continuum
where only their freedom becomes absolute.  While traditional ethicists search for a
code or set of established rules to guide their actions, the pragmatist has already
"been there," and for Rorty, completely understands this absence.  The idea of the stage
drama might be a good metaphor here.  The traditional ethicist believes in the script
and storyline that an established ethical philosophy provides.  Yet, the Pragmatist
understands that human beings are "walk ons," without a script or a director and are
forced "to act" as the curtain is up and the footlights burn bright into the dark
unknown and into our eyes.  In the end, this is a disturbing vision for traditional
ethicists who can only see despair in such a condition.  Yet, it is one of liberation
for the pragmatist, who draws on literary and cinematic tradition as much as philosophy
to require "different tools for different jobs" in constructing
consciousness.