Casuistry

We discussed Taylor's thoughts on casuistry a bit during our meeting but I just thought that I would quickly state them here for clarity and also because Taylor's positive view in large part relies on the fact that there can be no ultimate moral principle.

Casuistry is the procedure by which the moral quality of an action is determined by its relation to a general rule or principle of morality. This, Taylor believes, is the method used by modern moralists in their theorizing about ethics. However, casuistry in ethics is bound to fail for the general principles which are meant to justify our moral judgments are themselves entirely informed by our unreflective moral judgments. Taylor's claim is that whenever one tries to justify his conduct by appealing to a principle all he is doing is appealing to a principle which he has tailor made to accommodate his own moral intuitions. Thus, the principle justifies nothing as what it is supposed to justify is already assumed to be true.

To give an example of this, Taylor imagines a hospital dedicated to the moral principle: thou shalt not kill. Thus, all doctors and nurses attending this hospital take every measure in order to save people, yet under no circumstances act so as to destroy a living person. Yet, what should the employees do at this hospital when a maniac goes on the loose and tries to kill all the patients and where the only possible way to stop him is to kill him? Of course, the reply here would be to kill him as it would be an act of self defense. This is, however, an exception to the rule and is made on some basis other than rule (as a rule could not account for its own exceptions). What has happened here is that a particular sort of action has been assumed to be permissable despite the principle and thusly was declared to not covered under the principle. The clear problem here then is how one can determine what is and is not covered under the principle. Why can one not make the same sort of claims about such things as euthanasia and abortion, both practice prohibited by this hospital. Finally, now consider that this very hospital is faced with an ectopic pregnancy. If such a pregancy is allowed to continue both the mother and the child will surely die. The only other course of action would be to perform an abortion whereby, though the child will die, the mother will live. In this case, though the principle being held denies abortions, one can not for a moment doubt what should be done here. When the case is such that either one may refrain from action and thereby let two die or act and thereby save one, common sense provides the clear and obvious answer which no moral principle will overturn. Again, the principle finds an exception and what is made clear by all this is that any principle whatever (so long as it is not so vague so as to be void of content) is not impervious to exceptions and thus no principle whatever can stand as an ultimate prinicple of morality.

According to Taylor, what justifies conduct is its production of good not its alignment with any rule or principle. He thinks that rules and principles are important for society to have however, they must be evaluated in terms of their tendency to produce good and eliminate evil. If ever a principle is discovered to do the opposite it should be cast asunder. These conclusions, if correct, are devastating for rule-based ethical systems and would thus necessitate, if one is to be had, a system of ethics that does not rely on rules. This is exactly what Taylor then tries to formulate.

All in all, I think Taylor is right. Williams made a similar point in his book about intuitions informing principles which in turn justify the intuitions. Logic such as this seems in need of a lot of justification at best and is circular at worst. Thus, if casuistry can be shown to be unneccessary, as Taylor tries to show, then I believe it ought to be jettisoned along with the sentiment that ultimate principles are needed.