Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 563–577 | Cite as

Applying Principles to Cases and the Problem of Judgment

Article
  • 222 Downloads

Abstract

We sometimes decide what to do by applying moral principles to cases, but this is harder than it looks. Principles are more general than cases, and sometimes it is hard to tell whether and how a principle applies to a given case. Sometimes two conflicting principles seem to apply to the same case. To handle these problems, we use a kind of judgment to ascertain whether and how a principle applies to a given case, or which principle to follow when two principles seem to conflict. But what do we discern when we make such judgments—that is, what makes such judgments correct? The obvious answer is that they are made correct by whatever makes other moral judgments correct. However, that cannot be right, for a principle can be inconsistent with morality yet still apply in a particular way to a given case. If the principle is inconsistent with morality, then morality cannot be what we discern when we judge whether and how that principle applies to a given case. I offer an alternative account of what makes such judgments correct.

Keywords

Applied ethics Cases Casuistry Judgement Judgment Moral practice Practical judgment Principles Specification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Carl F. Cranor, Michael Cholbi, Mark LeBar, Graham McFee, Sean McKeever, Stephen R. Munzer, Michael Zimmerman, and two anonymous reviewers for comments.

References

  1. Blum L (1994) Moral perception and particularity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dworkin G (2006) Theory, practice, and moral reasoning. In: Copp D (ed) The Oxford handbook of ethical theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 624–644Google Scholar
  3. Gert B (1998) Morality: its nature and justification. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Gert B, Culver CM, Clouser KD (2006) Bioethics: a systematic approach, 2d ed. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Gibbard A (1990) Wise choices, apt feelings: a theory of normative judgment. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Hare RM (1977) Freedom and reason. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Hare RM (1989) Relevance. In: Hare RM (ed) Essays in ethical theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 191–211Google Scholar
  8. McKeever S, Ridge M (2006) Principled ethics: generalism as a regulative ideal. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mill JS ([1861] 2001) Utilitarianism. In: Sher G (ed) Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  10. O’Neill O (2007) Normativity and practical judgement. Journal of Moral Philosophy 4(3):393–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Neill O (2009) Applied ethics: naturalism, normativity and public policy. Journal of Applied Ethics 26(3):219–230Google Scholar
  12. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Rawls J (1999) Outline of a decision procedure for ethics. In: Freeman S (ed) Collected papers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  14. Richardson HS (1990) Specifying norms as a way to resolve concrete ethical problems. Philosophy & Public Affairs 19:279–310Google Scholar
  15. Ross WD ([1930] 1988) The right and the good. Hackett Publishing Company, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  16. Wallace JD (2008) Norms and practices. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCalifornia State University, FullertonFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations