Moral theories that reject the use of moral rules and principles face some serious problems. Do they invite biased reactions? Isn't such a method hostile to widely accepted moral standards in allowing each person to make up his or her own mind about things that have social consequences? What kind of moral guidance can such theories give? Shouldn't similar cases be decided similarly? For example, it seems unfair that a professor would permit a student who overslept to take a make-up while not allowing another who overslept to take one, and justified this different treatment by claiming some apparently irrelevant dissimilarity between the students, say that one is a little taller and may need more sleep! Casuistry attempts to overcome some of these problems while acknowledging the fact that cases can be quite complex and dissimilar. Casuists respect the guidance that moral rules may give, but insist that such guidance is proper only in the right kinds of cases. Casuists believe that the way to proceed is to identify paradigm cases; those that are clearly involve proper application of a rule: cases which are, clear, uncontroversial and without complicating circumstances -- for example, that the brutal, unprovoked punishment of a child is morally wrong. When we deal with cases that are very much like the paradigm case, we know that the rule holds. These cases then act as "blueprints" to give us guidance in resolving similar moral problems. Casuists also want to give advice on dissimilar cases by examining variations on paradigm cases: other cases that differ significantly yet have many of the same ingredients. Casuists try to determine whether those differing cases are bound by the same rule or permit a different judgment. As casuists deliberate on varied cases, the hope is that so many examples will be gathered that we can find an already solved case similar to our problem. Casuists believe that similar cases should be decided similarly and that we need the guidance of moral rules and wise observations. However, such judgments are contextual because of the importance of background circumstances, and so good judgment must be applied. No simple application of a rule can solve a moral problem. The hoped-for result is a catalogue of cases wisely judged with the help of rules. These cases become the models, or precedents, for future moral judgments.
    Casuists claim that moral judgments should be made by comparing cases against judgments made in paradigmatic cases; if the case at hand is not like the paradigm case, ideally, one would examine judgments made by wise people in cases which diverge, little by little, from paradigmatic cases. When we find the proper fit between our problem and a problem already solved, the casuist believes that we will be able to make the correct judgment.    Top