casuistic

Casuistic, or casuistic reasoning, is the practice of solving moral questions by analyzing particular cases and applying general principles or norms to them. The adjective derives from the Latin casus, meaning “case” or “occurrence,” and is used in theology, philosophy, and law to describe a method that moves from concrete instances to broader rules or exceptions.

Historically, casuistry developed in scholastic and Catholic moral theology, reaching prominence in the early modern period. It was especially associated with the Jesuit school of casuistry, which sought to resolve difficult moral dilemmas—such as questions of conscience, permissible exceptions, or the weighing of mitigating circumstances—through detailed examination of often similar past cases and the careful balancing of principles.

Practically, casuistic reasoning proceeds by comparing a present case to paradigmatic cases, distinguishing relevant factors (intent, motive, severity, obligation) and deriving conclusions about what is morally permissible or obligatory. In this framework, rules are not rigid dicta but flexible norms to be adjusted according to circumstances; some discussions also incorporate probabilism and other nuance to guide conscience.

Modern usage retains the neutral sense in analytic law, bioethics, and professional ethics, where case-based or precedent-driven reasoning is valued. However, “casuistry” can carry a pejorative connotation when seen as specious or evasive, used to rationalize questionable actions. The term thus spans both descriptive and evaluative uses, depending on context.