casuistry

简明释义

英[ˈkæʒuɪstri]美[ˈkæʒuɪstri]

n. 诡辩；决疑论，决疑法

复 数 c a s u i s t r i e s

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.This is unconvincing casuistry to those who see the purpose as simply lowering yields for countries that have lost the confidence of investors.

对那些认为欧洲央行的目的仅仅是压低那些失去投资者信心国家收益率的人来说，这是无法让人信服的诡辩。

2.Boundless compassion for all living beings is the surest and most certain guarantee of pure moral conduct, and needs no casuistry.

对所有生灵无尽的同情，是一个人的行为纯粹合乎道德的最可靠、最被期许的证明，并且不需要辩解。

3.On a "bottom up" alternative drawn from Medieval casuistry, it is richly described paradigm cases, not principles, that have the central role in moral reasoning.

一项来自于中世纪决疑法，自下而上的研究方案指出，道德推理的核心是那些详尽描述的范例，而非原则。

4.On a "bottom up" alternative drawn from Medieval casuistry, it is richly described paradigm cases, not principles, that have the central role in moral reasoning.

一项来自于中世纪决疑法，自下而上的研究方案指出，道德推理的核心是那些详尽描述的范例，而非原则。

5.The professor explained how casuistry can sometimes obscure the truth.

教授解释了诡辩如何有时会掩盖真相。

6.In his speech, he criticized the casuistry of politicians who change their stances for convenience.

在演讲中，他批评了那些为了方便而改变立场的政治家的诡辩。

7.The debate became heated as each side employed casuistry to defend their views.

随着双方各自使用诡辩来捍卫自己的观点，辩论变得激烈。

8.The lawyer used casuistry to navigate the complex moral dilemmas in the case.

律师运用诡辩来应对案件中的复杂道德困境。

9.Using casuistry, the ethicist argued for a more flexible interpretation of the rules.

伦理学家利用诡辩主张对规则进行更灵活的解释。

作文

In the realm of ethics and moral philosophy, the term casuistry refers to a method of reasoning that seeks to resolve moral dilemmas by examining specific cases and their contexts rather than by applying general principles. This approach has been both praised and criticized throughout history, often depending on the perspective of the individual evaluating its merits. One of the most significant advantages of casuistry is its emphasis on the particulars of a situation. Unlike rigid moral frameworks that can be overly simplistic, casuistry allows for a nuanced understanding of ethical issues. For instance, consider the classic dilemma of whether it is acceptable to lie in order to protect someone's feelings. A strict adherence to honesty might dictate that lying is always wrong; however, a casuistic approach would analyze the specific context—who is being lied to, what the potential consequences are, and the intentions behind the lie. This case-by-case analysis can lead to more compassionate and pragmatic ethical decisions.However, the reliance on casuistry can also lead to moral relativism, where any action can be justified based on its context. Critics argue that this flexibility can undermine the integrity of moral principles, allowing individuals to rationalize unethical behavior. For example, a person might use casuistry to justify theft by arguing that the victim is wealthy and could afford the loss. In this way, casuistry can become a slippery slope, where the line between right and wrong becomes increasingly blurred.Historically, casuistry has played a significant role in various fields, including law, medicine, and theology. In legal contexts, lawyers often rely on casuistry to build arguments that are tailored to the specifics of a case, rather than strictly adhering to precedent or statutory law. This can lead to innovative interpretations of the law that better serve justice in particular circumstances. Similarly, in medical ethics, casuistry allows healthcare professionals to navigate complex situations where standard guidelines may not apply, such as end-of-life decisions or experimental treatments.Despite its practical applications, the use of casuistry must be approached with caution. It requires a deep understanding of the ethical implications of each case and a commitment to maintaining moral integrity. The challenge lies in balancing the need for contextual analysis with the necessity of upholding universal ethical standards. Educators and ethicists often emphasize the importance of critical thinking and moral reasoning skills to ensure that individuals can engage in casuistry responsibly.In conclusion, casuistry offers a valuable framework for addressing complex ethical dilemmas by focusing on specific cases and their unique circumstances. While it provides flexibility and a deeper understanding of moral issues, it also poses risks of moral relativism and the potential for justifying unethical actions. Therefore, the practice of casuistry must be grounded in a solid ethical foundation and guided by principles that prioritize integrity and compassion. As we navigate an increasingly complex world, the ability to apply casuistry thoughtfully will be essential for making ethical decisions that reflect our values and contribute positively to society.

在伦理学和道德哲学的领域中，术语casuistry指的是一种推理方法，它通过检查特定案例及其背景来解决道德困境，而不是通过应用一般原则。这种方法在历史上受到赞扬和批评，往往取决于评估其优缺点的个体的视角。Casuistry的一个显著优点是它强调情境的细节。与可能过于简单的严格道德框架不同，casuistry允许对伦理问题进行细致入微的理解。例如，考虑经典的困境：为了保护某人的感情，撒谎是否可以接受？严格遵循诚实原则可能会认为撒谎永远是错误的；然而，casuistry的方法会分析具体的上下文——谁被撒谎，潜在的后果是什么，以及撒谎背后的意图是什么。这种逐案分析可以导致更具同情心和务实的伦理决策。然而，依赖于casuistry也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其背景被合理化。批评者认为，这种灵活性可能会破坏道德原则的完整性，使个人能够为不道德行为辩护。例如，一个人可能会利用casuistry来为盗窃辩护，理由是受害者富有，可以承受损失。从这个意义上说，casuistry可能成为一条滑坡，正义与错误之间的界限变得越来越模糊。历史上，casuistry在法律、医学和神学等多个领域发挥了重要作用。在法律背景下，律师通常依赖于casuistry来构建针对特定案件量身定制的论点，而不是严格遵循先例或法定法律。这可能导致对法律的创新解释，更好地服务于特定情况下的正义。同样，在医学伦理中，casuistry使医疗专业人员能够处理复杂情况，在这些情况下，标准指南可能不适用，例如临终决定或实验性治疗。尽管有其实际应用，但使用casuistry必须谨慎对待。它需要对每个案例的伦理影响有深入的理解，并致力于维护道德完整性。挑战在于平衡对情境分析的需求与维护普遍伦理标准的必要性。教育工作者和伦理学家通常强调批判性思维和道德推理技能的重要性，以确保个人能够负责任地参与casuistry。总之，casuistry为通过关注特定案例及其独特情况来解决复杂伦理困境提供了有价值的框架。虽然它提供了灵活性和对道德问题的更深理解，但它也带来了道德相对主义的风险以及为不道德行为辩护的潜力。因此，casuistry的实践必须建立在坚实的伦理基础上，并遵循优先考虑诚信和同情心的原则。当我们在一个日益复杂的世界中航行时，能够恰当地应用casuistry将对做出反映我们价值观并积极贡献于社会的伦理决策至关重要。