No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Anchor and Course for the Modern Ship of Casuistry
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
Extract
So much philosophical theory is irrelevant for the practice of ethics! How many wasted volumes of tortuous arguments and counterarguments have been written in search of an elusive theory of ethics that could be applied deductively, without modification, to produce “correct” answers under all circumstances to any ethical problem? The practice of ethics is much closer to the common sense casuistry approach outlined by Jonsen and Toulmin, in which we work from. intuitively grasped, paradigm, cases by way of analogy to provide presumptive answers to more complex problems. Alasdair Maclntyre argued however that we cannot trust such individualistic intuitive judgements. Thus we should start by looking at his critique of modern ethics.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994
References
Notes
1. Jonsen, A, Toulmin, S. The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.Google Scholar
2. Downing, L, Thigpen, R. After telos; the implications of Maclntyre's attempt to restore the concept in After Virtue. Social Theory and Practice 1984;10:39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Maclntyre, A. After Virtue. 2nd ed.Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984:11–12.Google Scholar
4. Maclntyre, A. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988:252.Google Scholar
5. See note 4. MacIntyre, . 1988:252.Google Scholar
6. See note 4. MacIntyre, . 1988:224.Google Scholar
7. Mullins, W. Book review of After Virtue. Canadian Journal of Political Science 1983;16:827.Google Scholar
8. See note 3. MacIntyre, . 1984:275.Google Scholar
9. See note 4. MacIntyre, . 1988:chapt. 18.Google Scholar
10. See note 3. MacIntyre, . 1984:275.Google Scholar
11. See note 3. MacIntyre, . 1984:187.Google Scholar
12. See note 3. MacIntyre, . 1984:275.Google Scholar
13. See note 2. Downing, , Thigpen, . 1984:44–5.Google Scholar
14. See note 3. MacIntyre, . 1984:55.Google Scholar
15. Wallace, RJ. Review essays. History and Theory 1989;28:328.Google Scholar
16. See note 3. MacIntyre, . 1984:58.Google Scholar
17. See note 4. MacIntyre, . 1988:357.Google Scholar
18. See note 3. MacIntyre, . 1984:60.Google Scholar
19. See note 1. Jonsen, , Toulmin, . 1988:293.Google Scholar
20. Sabelli, H, Synnestvedt, J. Personalization. A Vision for the Millennium. Chicago: Society for the Advancement of Clinical Philosophy, 1990:24–9.Google Scholar
21. Cortese, A. Ethnic Ethics. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990:chapt. 5.Google Scholar
22. Ellos, W. Ethical Practice in Clinical Medicine. New York: Rutledge, 1990:133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Reid, T. Essay on the Active Powers of Man. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983:359.Google Scholar
24. Moreno, J. Ethics by committee: the moral authority of consensus. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1988;13:242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. See note 22. Ellos, . 1990:137.Google Scholar
26. Arras, J. Common law morality. Hastings Center Report 07/08 1990;20(4):37.Google ScholarPubMed
27. Hampshire, S. Innocence and Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1989:118.Google Scholar
28. Pellegrino, ED, Thomasma, DC. For the Patient's Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988:32, 54.Google Scholar
29. Thomasma, DC. Human Life in the Balance. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990:60.Google Scholar
30. See note 29. Thomasma, . 1990:129.Google Scholar
31. See note 22. Ellos, . 1990:133.Google Scholar
32. See note 22. Ellos, . 1990:136.Google Scholar
33. Loewy, E. Suffering and the Beneficent Community. Buffalo: State University of New York Press, 1991.Google Scholar
34. Jensen, U. Practice and Progress. Boston: Black well, 1987:213.Google Scholar