Kuczewski Mark G
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1994 Jun;4(2):99-116. doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0082.
Communitarian critics have derided case-based reasoning for ignoring the need to arrive at a shared hierarchy of goods prior to case resolution. They claim that such a failure means that casuistry depends on either a naive metaphysical realism or an ethical conventionalism. Casuistry does embrace a certain unobjectionable moral realism and can require appeals to narrative histories, but despite this dependence on the surrounding culture, casuists possess a way to remain critical of society through the concept of practical wisdom and the use of a moral taxonomy. Therefore, casuistry's viability depends upon the existence and employment of this Aristotelian virtue. Furthermore, the casuistry that emerges is a sophisticated type of communitarianism rather than a free-standing method.
社群主义批评者嘲笑基于案例的推理,因为它忽视了在解决案例之前达成共享的善的等级制度的必要性。他们声称,这种失败意味着决疑法要么依赖于天真的形而上学实在论,要么依赖于伦理约定论。决疑法确实包含某种无可非议的道德实在论,并且可能需要诉诸叙事历史,但尽管依赖于周围的文化,决疑论者拥有通过实践智慧的概念和道德分类法的使用来对社会保持批判的方法。因此,决疑法的可行性取决于这种亚里士多德式美德的存在和运用。此外,由此产生的决疑法是一种复杂的社群主义类型,而不是一种独立的方法。