Social science sinners

Abstract

D espite unethical stories to the contrary, I am not a Jesuit. Nonetheless, I was trained by them for seven years and much of my formal ethical perspective would necessarily be called Jesuitical. Therefore, I propose in this article to use the case method of moral theology developed by the Jesuits which is not only Jesuitical but, heaven help us, casuistic. For some reason that is not altogether clear to me, when the Harvard Business School uses the case approach, it is thought to be engaging in educational innovation. But Jesuitical casuistry from all others is reprehensible and offensive. But let that pass. I present for your consideration ten casus which I propose to discuss. I am sure that everybody realizes that casus' is a fourth declension noun and that, therefore, the plural spelling is the same as the singular. Properly said, it is ten casus, instead of ten casi or casuses. Moreover, I will use the terminology of casuistry in evaluating these casus. Actions will be divided into grave sins, slight sins, and not sinful at all (alternative words would be mortal sin, venial sin, and without sin). Occasionally I will even use that supreme compliment of Jesuit moral theology, laudably, which is a poor translation for the Latin ludabiliter. Alter presenting the casus and discussing them, I will try to pull together empirically the principle which might be appropriate by way of summary.