Case method and casuistry: The problem of bias

Abstract
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)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 32,688
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Evaluating Ethical Tools.Payam Moula & Per Sandin - 2015 - Metaphilosophy 46 (2):263-279.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
The “Bias” Bias in Social Psychology: Adaptive When and How?James Friedrich - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):335-336.
Critiques of Casuistry and Why They Are Mistaken.Carson Strong - 1999 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (5):395-411.
Character as a Safeguard for Journalists Using Case-Based Ethical Reasoning.Sandra L. Borden - 1999 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (1):93-104.
Casuistry as Methodology in Clinical Ethics.Albert R. Jonsen - 1991 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 12 (4).
Casuistry and the Business Case Method.Martin Calkins - 2001 - Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):237-259.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
23 ( #252,068 of 2,237,247 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #264,336 of 2,237,247 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature