David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (1) (1994)
Case methods of reasoning are persuasive, but we need to address problems of bias in order to use them to reach morally justifiable conclusions. A bias is an unwarranted inclination or a special perspective that disposes us to mistaken or one-sided judgments. The potential for bias arises at each stage of a case method of reasoning including in describing, framing, selecting and comparing of cases and paradigms. A problem of bias occurs because to identify the relevant features for such purposes, we must use general views about what is relevant; but some of our general views are biased, both in the sense of being unwarranted inclinations and in the sense that they are one of many viable perspectives. This reliance upon general views to determine relevancy creates additional difficulties for defenders who maintain that case methods of moral reasoning are not only useful, but more basic, reliable or prior to other forms of moral reasoning. If we cannot identify the case's relevant features and issues independently of our general views or biases, we need further explanation about why a case method or casuistry should be viewed as prior to or more basic or reliable than other forms of moral reasoning. Problems of bias also arise for other methods of reasoning. In medical science, case reviews are regarded as an unreliable way to form generalizations, and methods such as clinical trials are used to address bias.
|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
Payam Moula & Per Sandin (2015). Evaluating Ethical Tools. Metaphilosophy 46 (2):263-279.
Stephen Buetow (2006). Opportunities to Elaborate on Casuistry in Clinical Decision Making. Commentary on Tonelli (2006). Integrating Evidence Into Clinical Practice: An Alternative to Evidence‐Based Approaches. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 12 (4):427-432.
Similar books and articles
Richard Brian Miller (1996). Casuistry and Modern Ethics: A Poetics of Practical Reasoning. University of Chicago Press.
James Friedrich (2004). The “Bias” Bias in Social Psychology: Adaptive When and How? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):335-336.
Richard F. West & Keith E. Stanovich (2008). On the Failure of Cognitive Ability to Predict Myside and One-Sided Thinking Biases. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):129-167.
Keith E. Stanovich & Richard F. West (2008). On the Failure of Cognitive Ability to Predict Myside and One-Sided Thinking Biases. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):129 – 167.
Carson Strong (1999). Critiques of Casuistry and Why They Are Mistaken. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (5):395-411.
Norbert Steinkamp & Bert Gordijn (2003). Ethical Case Deliberation on the Ward. A Comparison of Four Methods. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6 (3):235-246.
Sandra L. Borden (1999). Character as a Safeguard for Journalists Using Case-Based Ethical Reasoning. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (1):93-104.
Jonathan St B. T. Evans (1998). Matching Bias in Conditional Reasoning: Do We Understand It After 25 Years? Thinking and Reasoning 4 (1):45 – 110.
Albert R. Jonsen (1991). Casuistry as Methodology in Clinical Ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 12 (4).
Martin Calkins (2001). Casuistry and the Business Case Method. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):237-259.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #223,423 of 1,781,360 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #295,020 of 1,781,360 )
How can I increase my downloads?