Bioethics, Reasoning and Conflict Resolutions. Between Principialism and Casuistics. Civil Law and Common Law

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to describe the most distinctive features of two schemes of traditional reasoning used as tools for analysis and resolution of both moral conflicts (bioethics) and legal argument: principlism and casuistry. Through a critical analysis of these structures and how they have been employed historically and function today in practice, we describe the extent to which these schemes converge and diverge. Finally we propose at a new scenario that is increasingly moving away from the claim to correctness of decisions and is closer to the size of the probable and reflective equilibrium.