casuist

简明释义

英[ˈkæzjʊɪst]美[ˈkæzjʊɪst]

n. 诡辩家；决疑者

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.As a casuist, she was able to navigate complex legal issues with ease.

作为一名诡辩者，她能够轻松应对复杂的法律问题。

2.The philosopher was often regarded as a skilled casuist, adept at resolving moral dilemmas.

这位哲学家常被视为一位熟练的诡辩者，擅长解决道德困境。

3.In his writings, the casuist explored the nuances of ethical decision-making.

在他的著作中，这位诡辩者探讨了伦理决策的细微差别。

4.The debate turned heated when a casuist presented a controversial argument.

当一位诡辩者提出一个有争议的论点时，辩论变得激烈。

5.Some critics argue that the casuist approach can lead to moral relativism.

一些批评者认为，诡辩者的方法可能导致道德相对主义。

作文

In the realm of ethics and moral philosophy, the term casuist refers to an individual who applies general moral principles to specific cases or situations. This approach is often seen in discussions surrounding moral dilemmas where rigid adherence to rules may not yield satisfactory outcomes. A casuist, therefore, seeks to navigate the complexities of ethical decision-making by considering the nuances of each unique circumstance. Historically, casuists have played a significant role in the development of moral theology. The practice can be traced back to the medieval period when scholars attempted to reconcile faith with the practical realities of human behavior. For instance, Jesuit theologians were known for their detailed analyses of ethical questions, often employing a casuistic method to address issues such as lying, theft, and other moral transgressions. These theologians would dissect the particulars of each situation, weighing the intentions and consequences involved, which allowed them to offer guidance that was both context-sensitive and aligned with broader ethical principles.One notable aspect of casuistry is its emphasis on the importance of context in moral reasoning. Unlike a strict deontological approach, which prioritizes adherence to established rules, a casuist recognizes that human actions cannot always be neatly categorized. For example, consider a scenario where a person must decide whether to lie to protect a friend from harm. A traditional moralist might argue that lying is inherently wrong, while a casuist would analyze the specific circumstances, including the potential harm of telling the truth versus the consequences of lying. This flexibility allows for a more compassionate and pragmatic approach to ethics.However, the practice of casuistry is not without its critics. Some argue that it can lead to moral relativism, where any action can be justified based on context, potentially undermining the integrity of moral principles. Critics contend that a casuist might manipulate ethical guidelines to suit personal agendas, thus eroding the foundation of universal morality. Despite these concerns, many philosophers and ethicists maintain that the casuistic method is essential for addressing the complexities of modern ethical issues, especially in fields like medicine, law, and business.In contemporary discourse, the relevance of casuistry has resurfaced, particularly in discussions about bioethics. Medical professionals often face dilemmas that require careful consideration of ethical principles alongside the unique circumstances of patients. For instance, decisions regarding end-of-life care, organ donation, and informed consent frequently involve casuistic reasoning. Here, healthcare providers must weigh the rights and wishes of patients against medical ethics and societal norms, illustrating the practical application of casuistry in real-world scenarios.In conclusion, the role of a casuist is vital in navigating the intricate landscape of moral decision-making. By focusing on the specifics of each situation, casuists provide a framework for understanding the ethical implications of our choices. While the approach may face criticism, its adaptability and emphasis on context make it a valuable tool in the ongoing exploration of morality. As we confront increasingly complex ethical challenges in our lives, the insights of casuists will undoubtedly continue to inform our understanding of right and wrong.

在伦理学和道德哲学的领域中，术语casuist指的是一个将一般道德原则应用于特定案例或情况的个体。这种方法常常出现在围绕道德困境的讨论中，其中严格遵循规则可能无法产生令人满意的结果。因此，casuist试图通过考虑每个独特情况的细微差别来驾驭伦理决策的复杂性。

历史上，casuists在道德神学的发展中扮演了重要角色。这种实践可以追溯到中世纪，当时学者们试图调和信仰与人类行为的实际现实。例如，耶稣会神学家以其对道德问题的详细分析而闻名，常常采用casuistic的方法来处理谎言、盗窃和其他道德过失等问题。这些神学家会剖析每种情况的细节，权衡涉及的意图和后果，使他们能够提供既符合上下文又与更广泛的伦理原则一致的指导。

值得注意的是，casuistry的一个重要方面是强调上下文在道德推理中的重要性。与优先遵循既定规则的严格义务论方法不同，casuist认识到人类行为并不总能被整齐地分类。例如，考虑一个场景，一个人必须决定是否说谎以保护朋友免受伤害。传统的道德主义者可能会认为说谎本质上是错误的，而casuist则会分析具体情况，包括说真话的潜在伤害与说谎的后果。这种灵活性允许一种更具同情心和务实的伦理方法。

然而，casuistry的实践并非没有批评者。一些人认为这可能导致道德相对主义，在这种情况下，任何行为都可以根据上下文得到辩解，可能会削弱道德原则的完整性。批评者认为，casuist可能会操纵伦理准则以适应个人议程，从而侵蚀普遍道德的基础。尽管存在这些担忧，许多哲学家和伦理学家仍然认为，casuistic方法对于解决现代伦理问题至关重要，特别是在医学、法律和商业等领域。

在当代话语中，casuistry的相关性重新浮现，特别是在生物伦理学的讨论中。医疗专业人员经常面临需要仔细考虑伦理原则以及患者独特情况的困境。例如，关于临终关怀、器官捐献和知情同意的决定常常涉及casuistic推理。在这里，医疗提供者必须权衡患者的权利和愿望与医学伦理和社会规范，这说明了casuistry在现实世界场景中的实际应用。

总之，casuist的角色在驾驭道德决策的复杂景观中至关重要。通过关注每种情况的具体情况，casuists提供了一个理解我们选择的伦理影响的框架。尽管这种方法可能面临批评，但其适应性和对上下文的重视使其成为探索道德的宝贵工具。当我们在生活中面对日益复杂的伦理挑战时，casuists的见解无疑将继续影响我们对对与错的理解。