Conscientious objection should not be equated with moral objection: a response to Ben-Moshe
- PMID: 31311853
- DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105670
Conscientious objection should not be equated with moral objection: a response to Ben-Moshe
Abstract
In his recent article, Ben-Moshe offers an account of conscientious objection (CO) in terms of the truth of the underlying moral objections, as judged by the standards of an impartial spectator. He seems to advocate for the view that having a valid moral objection to X is the sole criteria for the instantiation of a right to conscientiously object to X, and seems indifferent to the moral status of the prevailing moral attitudes. I argue that the moral status of the prevailing moral attitudes is relevant, and that a good faith disagreement between those who condone the relevant act and those who object to it is a criterion for CO. In this light, I suggest that CO is a sociopolitical device for managing differing ethical perspectives, particularly in the context of collective moral change. Thus, it is misguided to equate having a valid moral objection with the recognition of a CO.
Keywords: abortion; applied and professional ethics; conscientious objection; ethics; euthanasia.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Comment in
-
The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine: a reply to Clarke, Emmerich, Minerva and Saad.J Med Ethics. 2019 Oct;45(10):681-683. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105803. Epub 2019 Sep 24. J Med Ethics. 2019. PMID: 31551252 No abstract available.
Comment on
-
The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine.J Med Ethics. 2019 Jun;45(6):404-410. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105332. Epub 2019 Jun 20. J Med Ethics. 2019. PMID: 31221763
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical