Casuist ethical theory
is a process of reasoning that seeks to resolve moral problems by extracting or extending theoretical rules from a particular case, and reapplying those rules to new instances? This method occurs in applied ethics and jurisprudence (Hall, 2019).
Casuistry, or case-based reasoning, does not focus on rules and theories but rather on practical decision-making in particular cases based on precedent. So first the particular features of a case would be identified, and then a comparison would be made with other similar cases and prior experiences, attempting to determine not only the similarities but also the differences (Arras, 2017).
The relevance of casuist ethical theory
In the casuist ethical theory decision are made basing on the precedent in achieving the principal of Beneficence. The principle of beneficence is the obligation of physician to act for the benefit of the patient and supports a number of moral rules to protect and defend the right of others, prevent harm, remove conditions that will cause harm, help persons with disabilities, and rescue persons in danger. Since the decision are based on prior examples therefore a physician is able to prevent danger to the current patient due to the prior experience and this also prevents harm, promotes accountability. Beneficence is defined as an act of charity, mercy, and kindness with a strong connotation of doing good to others including moral obligation. All professionals have the foundational moral imperative of doing right. In the context of the professional-client relationship, the professional is obligated to, always and without exception, favor the well-being and interest of the client. In health care, beneficence is one of the fundamental ethics. An integral part of work as a professional is the foundational ethic of beneficence. An understanding of this ethic of care compels the individual health practitioner to consider his or her calling to the high standards of professionalism as a moral imperative; one that advocates for high standards and strives for the greater good (Avella, 2017).
This theory promotes accountability because of specific professionals like in the medical field swear to take the oath in the medical field and respect the established principles which have been tested and proved to be efficient in reducing harm and therefore they are accountable to the rules that govern them in the medical field.
Most professional like the legal profession rely on the Casuist ethical theory in deciding most of the cases this is because they base on the prior cases to act as reference to the current situation at hand. To make decisions that are fair, prevent harm and promote accountability by relying to specific established principles.
The theory of casuist ethical theory provides a guideline to which professionals like in medical and accountancy must follow. Since the previous experience provides a platform through which they must follow. This prevents these professional from taking risks since they already have an established principal and therefore helps them to not cause harm to the patients or their clients (Fox, 2019).
It enables the leaders to take responsibility for their actions because they will already have hard experience of dealing with the specific challenge in the past. The roles taken on by decision-makers imply a responsibility to perform certain functions associated with those roles. To be more specific, responsibility refers to more than just the primary function of a role; it refers to the multiple facets of that function, which includes both processes and outcomes, and the consequences of the acts performed as part of that set of obligations. A responsible actor may be seen as one whose job involves a predetermined set of obligations that need to be met in order for the job to be accomplished and therefore this theory enhance moral responsibility among the leaders inline to the specific roles, an awareness of action and consequences, and a willingness to act free from external compulsion (Legault et al., 2019).
Casuist ethical theory is able to evaluate the performance of an official basing on the previous performance and therefore this makes it possible for an organization to create accountability determining criteria in an organization. When grading odd and irregular behavior regarded as unethical, it considers the person’s morality, reputation, and motivation. This theory judges a person by character and not by a single mistake. If the person is known to be good, they are judged leniently because one action may deviate from their normal behavior and this is possible only by judging the actions of the predecessor and so if a person is known trouble maker, they are regarded as unethical (Fuller, 2019) .
The basic elements of casuistic reasoning may be illustrated in the following scenario. A maintenance supply vendor visits the manager of a large apartment building and demonstrates the advantages of switching to energy-efficient lightbulbs. The vendor adds, “We’re having a special promotion right now. Everyone who orders 10 cases of bulbs gets a free emergency radio.” Is it ethical for the manager to order 10 cases and accept the gift.
A casuist might approach the scenario by identifying its morally significant features. Those features might include the value of the gift, the quality of the product being offered for sale, the availability of similar products from other vendors at a lower price, and the timing of the gift offer relative to the timing of the manager’s decision about whether to buy. The casuist might next identify any generally accepted rules or values involved in the case. A rule in the case of the manager might be, “Get the best value for the building owner’s money.
Clinicians grapple with ethical dilemmas when making choices and decisions while caring for patients could be a challenge and a struggle. The key principles of clinical ethics, i.e., beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, may not be easily applied to a context and ethical decision-making has become more complicated. This is, in part, due to the rapid changes taking place in medicine today. Advances in often complex medical interventions have improved our ability to prolong life, often encompassing side effects that are both intended and unintended. Increasing emphasis on patients’ right to self-determination and ever-spiraling healthcare costs have all contributed to the moral and ethical conundrum that clinicians must confront in their daily work (Leikas, Koivisto, & Gotcheva, 2019).
Casuist ethical theory encourages attention to the details of cases and this can help open up a range of options for those caught in ethically murky situations. This helps people in construction industry, medical field, law, in paying attentions to detail to the task before them and relating them to previous experiences in other parts of the world.
Casuist theory is a rational method and provides for an indispensable instrument for assessing one’s own and others’ behavior, and so in providing disciplined development towards the highest goal. This enable the leaders to make their own self-evaluation and thereby they are able to improve their characters in line to the highest standards, there by leading to accountability, and better performance.
According to casuist theory the principle of justice obliges us to equitably distribute benefits, risks, costs, and resources. The following arguments (rules) are supported by the principle of justice: To each person an equal share, to each person according to need, to each person according to effort, to each person according to contribution and to each person according to merit. this therefore helps in reducing harm and also promotes beneficiace.
The principle of nonmaleficence holds that there is an obligation not to inflict harm on others. It is closely associated with the maxim primum non nocere (first do no harm). The principle of nonmaleficence supports the following rules; Do not kill, Do not cause pain or suffering, Do not incapacitate and Do not cause offense.
Casuistry cannot help but sharpen and deepen moral insight and awareness, often through the very fact that it forces us to confront the real ambiguities, tensions, and compromises surrounding so many specific issues. This enable the performance of the leaders to improve and thereby leading to self-accountability.
casuist ethical theory creates an environment for Respect for autonomy: respecting the decision-making capacities of autonomous persons; enabling individuals to make reasoned informed choices.
Beneficence: balancing benefits of treatment against the risks and costs; for example, the healthcare professional should act in a way that benefits the patient.
Non maleficence: avoiding causing harm; the healthcare professional should not harm the patient. Most treatment involves some harm, even if minimal, but the harm should not be disproportionate to the benefits of the treatment. Justice: respect for justice takes several forms: Distribution of a fair share of benefits, Legal justice – doing what the law says and Rights based justice, which deals in the language, and perhaps the rhetoric, of claimed human rights, and hence goes beyond, though it includes, legal rights.
Practitioners in various fields value casuistry as an orderly yet flexible way to think about real-life ethical problems. Casuistry can be particularly useful when values or rules conflict. The theory helps professional in fields like law , business, management and medicine to have a references point in so doing they are able to enable the current people not to face harm because they are basing on the former reference For example, what should be done when a business executive’s duty to meet a client’s expectations collides with a professional duty to protect the public. Casuistry also helps clarify cases in which novel or complex circumstances make the application of rules unclear for example Should e-mail receive the same privacy protection as regular mail, If someone develops an idea while working for one employer, is it ethical to use that idea to help a subsequent employer. Casuistry seeks both to illuminate the meaning and moral significance of the details in such cases and to discern workable solutions (Fox, 2019).
Criticism of casuistry ethical theory
At least five main objections to casuistry have been put forward: 1) it requires a uniformity of views that is not present in contemporary pluralistic society; (2) it cannot achieve consensus on controversial issues; (3) it is unable to examine critically intuitions about cases; (4) it yields different conclusions about cases when alternative paradigms are chosen; and (5) it cannot articulate the grounds of its conclusions. Two main versions of casuistry have been put forward, and the responses to these objections depend in part on which version one is defending. Jonsen has advocated a version modeled on the approach to casuistry used by moral theologians in the 15th and 16th century, involving comparison of the case at hand with a single paradigm and a “lineup” of cases.
Casuistry departs from ethical approaches that work deductively from rules thought to have clear applications in all circumstances. Casuistry takes rules into account but begins with the moral and practical features of each case.
Casuistry also departs from approaches to ethics that rely solely on good character or virtuous motives. Instead, casuistry demands deliberation about how to put good character and virtuous motives into practice.
Some authors classify casuistry as a subset of applied ethics, or practical ethics. That is the branch of ethics that is concerned with the application of moral norms to practical problems. Others restrict the term applied ethics to deductive reasoning from principles to cases. Accordingly, those authors view casuistry as an alternative to applied ethics.
REFERENCES
Avella, J. R. (2017). The dilemma of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(2), 42-44.
Legault, G. A., Béland, J. P., Parent, M., Suzanne, K., Bellemare, C. A., Bernier, L., … & Patenaude, J. (2019). Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a challenge for applied philosophy. Open Journal of Philosophy, 9(3), 331-351.
Fuller, M. (2019). Making sense of MacIntyre. Routledge.
Leikas, J., Koivisto, R., & Gotcheva, N. (2019). Ethical framework for designing autonomous intelligent systems. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(1), 18.
Fox, C. J. (2019). The use of philosophy in administrative ethics. In Handbook of administrative ethics (pp. 105-130). Routledge.
Arras, J. D. (2017). Getting down to cases: The revival of casuistry in bioethics. Ethics and Medical Decision-Making, 463-485.
Wharton, G. (2018). Bespoke ethics and moral casuistry in the conservation of contemporary art. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 41(1), 58-70.
Hall, R. T. (2019). Neuro-enhancement research: a casuistic approach. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, (10), 61-74.
