David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 12 (4) (1991)
This essay focuses on how casuistry can become a useful technique of practical reasoning for the clinical ethicist or ethics consultant. Casuistry is defined, its relationship to rhetorical reasoning and its interpretation of cases, by employing three terms that, while they are not employed by the classical rhetoricians and casuists, conform, in a general way, to the features of their work. Those terms are (1) morphology, (2) taxonomy, (3) kinetics. The morphology of a case reveals the invariant structure of the particular case whatever its contingent features, and also the invariant forms of argument relevant to any case of the same sort: these invariant features can be called topics. Taxonomy situates the instant case in a series of similar cases, allowing the similarities and differences between an instant case and a paradigm case to dictate the moral judgment about the instant case. This judgment is based, not merely on application of an ethical theory or principle, but upon the way in which circumstances and maxims appear in the morphology of the case itself and in comparison with other cases. Kinetics is an understanding of the way in which one case imparts a kind of moral movement to other cases, that is, different and sometimes unprecedented circumstances may move certain marginal or exceptional cases to the level of paradigm cases. In conclusion, casuistry is the exercise of prudential or practical reasoning in recognition of the relationship between maxims, circumstances and topics, as well as the relationship of paradigms to analogous cases.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Pascal Borry, Paul Schotsmans & Kris Dierickx (2005). The Birth of the Empirical Turn in Bioethics. Bioethics 19 (1):49–71.
Dr Bert Heinrichs (2008). Zum Beispiel. Über den methodologischen Stellenwert von Fallbeispielen in der Angewandten Ethik. Ethik in der Medizin 20 (1):40-52.
Similar books and articles
Eric B. Beresford (1996). Can Phronesis Save the Life of Medical Ethics? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 17 (3).
Kevin Wm Wildes (1993). The Priesthood of Bioethics and the Return of Casuistry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (1):33-49.
Carson Strong (1999). Critiques of Casuistry and Why They Are Mistaken. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (5):395-411.
Martin Calkins (2001). Casuistry and the Business Case Method. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):237-259.
John D. Arras (1991). Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (1):29-51.
Loretta M. Kopelman (1994). Case Method and Casuistry: The Problem of Bias. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (1).
John K. Davis (2007). Intuition and the Junctures of Judgment in Decision Procedures for Clinical Ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (1):1-30.
Richard Brian Miller (1996). Casuistry and Modern Ethics: A Poetics of Practical Reasoning. University of Chicago Press.
Soo Bae Kim (2009). The Formation of Kant's Casuistry and Method Problems of Applied Ethics. Kant-Studien 100 (3):332-345.
David E. Boeyink (1992). Casuistry: A Case-Based Methods for Journalists. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 7 (2):107 – 120.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #68,136 of 1,679,364 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #111,749 of 1,679,364 )
How can I increase my downloads?