Getting Down to Cases
This chapter outlines and critically evaluates the “new casuistry” account of Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin. It begins by explaining the core elements of casuistical analyses of this kind, such as the theoretical primacy they place on actual cases as opposed to principles. In doing so, it clarifies how the “new casuistry” differs from the method of casuistry pioneers in the Middle Ages who brought abstract and universal ethico-religious precepts to bear on particular moral situations. The chapter then outlines some advantages of the method before uncovering some of its problems. In particular, problems arise from trying to separate out which cases are morally significant, and there are concerns about casuistry’s handling of the issues of indeterminacy and consensus.