ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-ADD-20261020-0025 · ATLAS 261

Casuistry: reasoning through cases

Casuistry here means a method of examining concrete cases, identifying relevant circumstances and comparing cases to test the application or interpretation of norms. It can clarify justified differences; the pejorative sense of ingenious excuse-making remains part of the term's history.

Part of the subject path Argumentation, Logic and Discourse

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

F · Figure / procedure R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Makes responsible movement between general norms and concrete circumstances visible, including a counter-test against selective exceptions.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

A general rule does not describe in advance every situation in which it will be used. Comparing cases makes relevant circumstances explicit: what purpose does the rule serve, what options existed and what feature changes the judgment? Resemblance is not enough unless the selected similarity matters to the norm. The process also checks its own selectivity. A person may accept an exception for a friend but reject the same reason for an unpopular colleague. The counter-case asks whether the criterion survives that change. Case-based reasoning can refine a norm without proving the norm itself just or allowing every difference to become an exemption.

Movement of thought

1. State the norm and its purpose. 2. Describe the relevant circumstances. 3. Choose comparable cases and explain the comparison. 4. Identify the difference bearing on the judgment. 5. Test the criterion on inconvenient cases and revise where warranted.

Scientific use case

Research on case-based argumentation can reconstruct selected features and the transition from comparison to judgment. The history and representativeness of the comparison cases are themselves open to scrutiny.

Example

Invented rule: submit material by Friday. One person forgot; another could not use the shared server until Saturday. Ask whether unavailable access matters to the deadline's purpose and whether the same reason would be accepted for someone one dislikes.

Counterexample

Neither 'every case is different' nor 'late is late' supplies a complete judgment. The profile does not equate historical casuistry with all current precedent systems and offers no legal or medical instructions.

Distinction

Analogy provides a relation between cases; exemplum illustrates; deduction follows from premises. Casuistry organises these operations around applying and interpreting norms in concrete circumstances. It is not a new general logic.

Effect on thought and perception

A space appears between mechanical uniformity and arbitrary special treatment: differences must be relevant and publicly explainable.

Resonance

A person need not disappear within an abstract rule. Their particular circumstances do not, however, remove shared standards of accountability.

Etymology

The term belongs to the lexical field of the case. Its naming identifies a starting point, not a guarantee of sound reasoning.

Provenance

The HWdR dossier presents normative case discussion and historical criticism. Ancient and later practices are not silently treated as identical to present institutional rules.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Casuistry: reasoning through cases“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-ADD-20261020-0025. ATLAS 261, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-ADD-20261020-0025

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-ADD-20261020-0025

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-20. Include your access date for precise references.

Guiding question

Which difference between two cases is a reason to judge them differently?

Five coordinate questions

These descriptions explain the entry. They are not controlled register values and do not generate shared register results.

Where can the process be observed?

Invented rule: submit material by Friday. One person forgot; another could not use the shared server until Saturday. Ask whether unavailable access matters to the deadline's purpose and whether the same reason would be accepted for someone one dislikes.

What happens to the material?

State the norm and its purpose.

Describe the relevant circumstances.

Choose comparable cases and explain the comparison.

Identify the difference bearing on the judgment.

Test the criterion on inconvenient cases and revise where warranted.

At what level does a change occur?

A space appears between mechanical uniformity and arbitrary special treatment: differences must be relevant and publicly explainable.

What temporal structure is explicitly described?

The steps offer an order of analysis, not an asserted real-time sequence of mental events. Read the particular example sequence separately from the historical development.

How can the description be tested?

Neither 'every case is different' nor 'late is late' supplies a complete judgment. The profile does not equate historical casuistry with all current precedent systems and offers no legal or medical instructions.

Historical context

The HWdR dossier presents normative case discussion and historical criticism. Ancient and later practices are not silently treated as identical to present institutional rules.

Cross-language distinction and terminology

English casuistry often implies sophistical excuse-making. Case-based reasoning explains the constructive focus, but cannot replace every historical or critical occurrence of casuistry.

Scholarly comparisons and distinctions

These entries are editorial comparison anchors for the distinctions made in this article. They are not new canonical relation edges or shared register results.

Proposed thought pathway

  1. State the norm and its purpose.
  2. Describe the relevant circumstances.
  3. Choose comparable cases and explain the comparison.
  4. Identify the difference bearing on the judgment.
  5. Test the criterion on inconvenient cases and revise where warranted.

An editorial exploration, not a necessary sequence of thought or experimental evidence of an effect.

Source scope and provenance

Both specialist versions are editorially accepted. The recorded scope of the reference-work research is retained; this is not a fresh full verification of every primary source. Examples and analytical steps are Atlas applications.