[Something about the history and future use of casuistry]

Already Aristotle was aware of that an act ethically could not be judged alone by its effect, but circumstances should also be considered. This point of view was later taken over by Christianity in the form of the so called casuistry. The use of circumstances in the judgment of an act as regards the moral permissibility was, however, to some extent misused, especially by the Jesuites in the 16th and the first half of the 17th century. In defence of the "Jansenites" Blaise Pascal launched a direct attack on the Jesuites' use of casuistry in spiritual advice of the sinners. His elegant and vitty satire destroyed any talk of using casuistry for a long time, at least in the protestantic Northern Europe. Casuistry was regarded as synonym with sophistry. In 1988 Jonsen and Toulmin has argued that it is only the misuse of casuistry that is to blame. Used in a proper way it still has a future resolving moral problems especially in medical ethics. The present author is of the opinion that some degree of casuistical reasonning unconsciously is used in the present ethical debate, but more awareness hereof may be an advantage in the debate.