Strong on Specification  

Oleh:

Jonsen, Albert R.

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy vol. 25 no. 3 (Jun. 2000), page 348-360.
Topik: Principlism and Casuistry
Fulltext: MM80V25N3P348.pdf (60.62KB)

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: MM80.10 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

Carson Strong has always been strong on casuistry. He has written cogently in its defense and used the casuistic method to analyze perplexing cases (Strong, 1997, 1988). Henry Richardson (1990) and David DeGrazia (1992) have been polite neighbors of casuistry. The casuists claim to be able to get closer to cases than a rigid principlist can, but the critics of casuistry contend that their closeness comes at great price, mainly, the loss of discursive argumentation to an undisciplined intuitionism. Richardson and DeGrazia, while philosophically attracted to principlism, have written with mild appreciation about the merits of casuistry. They suggest that their own contribution to practical ethics, ‘specification’ or ‘specified principlism’, could remedy the defects of principlism and casuistry alike. They even suggest that casuistry and specified principlism are compatible.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali