This method may be considered similar to the one used by judges in deciding court rulings for cases. It includes comparison of the present case with the cases that occurred in the past. It also involves gathering of analogies and disanalogies from both cases and then analysis (Texas A&M University, 2008). In the method of casuistry, an act is determined whether or not it is to be considered as bribery by depending mainly on the facts of the given case.
The decisions of the parties involved in a certain period of time are carefully taken into consideration as well as the gifts or amenities offered and how it was given and accepted. This is done for it may affect the peoples comprehension and judgment of the act that succeeded thereafter. With deeper analysis of these factors, it may be easy to distinguish a simple act of offering and acceptance from acts of bribery (Texas A&M University, 2008). As in many cases of morality in question, the method of casuistry also has drawbacks and criticisms.
For this method heavily relies on peoples judgment that is highly dependent on empirical data, there may be a possible discrepancy in case an evidence is not presented. As such, culpability may be reduced. The huge tendency for people to lie about pieces of evidences may affect the judgment of the act as a whole. The effectiveness of the method is then reduced and the judgment as to whether an act is bribery or not becomes a problem again (Texas A&M University, 2008).
Texas A&M University. (2008). Engineering Ethics. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://ethics. tamu. edu/ethics/giftgive/giftgiv1. htm