User blog comment:Carousel Gizmologist/Wtf society? Seriously?/@comment-4295646-20120221203651

I understand your frustration. But it's actually, I think, less dire than it seems, and we certainly can't hope for one moderately context-entrenched term to serve as a reflection of society.

For one thing, "casuistry" (and I love your teacher for using the word) is one of those terms that. . . Well, it fluctuates in the type of argument it's deemed to characterize. The snider connotation you bring to light is only one meaning - and if I understand you right, it's not what you think! Let's start with the neutral, blah definition. Officially, casuistry describes a method of arguing by pointing out special or illuminating cases. For instance, let's say someone opined that "Assault is always evil". Someone else responds (as you might expect): "Wait, though. What if there's a case where A is clearly at serious physical risk from B, and the only way to prevent A's harm is to assault B?" Now, you can argue it further from there - but the point is, that is the archetypal example of what "casuistry" means without that particular connotation. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, when used properly. We use it every day. Hell, I can't think of any philosopher who avoids it.

The more negative meaning is used for arguments that posit cases in a way that is not contributive to the discussion, and only serves to turn enlightening debates into quibblefests about shit that doesn't matter. For instance, someone could misuse or abuse casuistry by drawing wide inferences from two cases that actually aren't anything alike. Are you familiar with the fallacy of weak analogy? That's part of what the critics of casuistry are complaining about. I think it stemmed from some criticism Pascal brought up in the 17th century. Not sure. Point is, this type of casuistry is seen as evasive and manipulative, reliant more on rhetoric than reasoning. Logic has nothing to do with it.

Anyway. Rest assured - there are surely grounds for objective reasoning in ethics. Take a peek at the "Gorgias" and Books I-II of the "Republic" for some respectable examples of the dialectic in motion. :]