Abstract

This is both an illuminating and penetrating study of the history of casuistry, and a persuasive argument for its relevance in contemporary ethics. The authors seek to revitalize "case argument as a fruitful method of practical moral reasoning". In so doing, they hope to steer safely between a rigid morality which holds to certain eternal and invariable principles, and a relativistic morality which repudiates the notion of an inflexible body of dogmatic principles. To support their contention, they provide a historical account of the practice of casuistry, identify its shortcomings and past abuses, and try to reconstruct it to make it appetizing to a modern audience.