Specifying Specification.

This paper tackles the accusation that applied ethics is no serious academic enterprise because it lacks theoretical bracing. It does so in two steps. In the first step I introduce and discuss a highly acclaimed method to guarantee stability in ethical theories: Henry Richardson's specification. The discussion shows how seriously ethicists take the stability of the connection between the foundational parts of their theories and their further development as well as their "application" to particular problems or cases. A detailed scrutiny of specification leads to the second step, where I use insights from legal theory to inform the debate around stability from that point of view. This view reveals some of specification's limitations. I suggest that, once specification is sufficiently specified, it appears astonishingly similar to deduction as used in legal theory. Legal theory also provides valuable insight into the functional range of deduction and its relation to other forms of reasoning. This leads to a richer understanding of stability in normative theories and to a smart division of labor between deduction and other forms of reasoning. The comparison to legal theory thereby provides a framework for how different methods such as specification, deduction, balancing, and analogy relate to one another.

Casuistry as common law morality.

This article elaborates on the relation between ethical casuistry and common law reasoning. Despite the frequent talk of casuistry as common law morality, remarks on this issue largely remain at the purely metaphorical level. The article outlines and scrutinizes Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin's version of casuistry and its basic elements. Drawing lessons for casuistry from common law reasoning, it is argued that one generally has to be faithful to ethical paradigms. There are, however, limitations for the binding force of paradigms. The most important limitations--the possibilities of overruling and distinguishing paradigm norms--are similar in common law and in casuistry, or so it is argued. These limitations explain why casuistry is not necessarily overly conservative and conventional, which is one line of criticism to which casuists can now better respond. Another line of criticism has it that the very reasoning from case to case is extremely unclear in casuistry. I suggest a certain model of analogical reasoning to address this critique. All my suggestions to understand and to enhance casuistry make use of common law reasoning whilst remaining faithful to Jonsen and Toulmin's main ideas and commitments. Further developed along these lines, casuistry can appropriately be called "common law morality."