Loading…
The Merits and Limits of Conscience-Based Legal Exemptions
Exemption claims remain a tangled and divisive moral and legal issue both in academia and in the public sphere. In his book Exemptions: Necessary, Justified, or Misguided? , the constitutional scholar Kent Greenawalt zeros in on the vexed question of whether exemptions from rules of general applicab...
Saved in:
Published in: | Criminal law and philosophy 2022-04, Vol.16 (1), p.127-134 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Exemption claims remain a tangled and divisive moral and legal issue both in academia and in the public sphere. In his book
Exemptions: Necessary, Justified, or Misguided?
, the constitutional scholar Kent Greenawalt zeros in on the vexed question of whether exemptions from rules of general applicability based on the conscientious convictions of individuals or groups are sometimes justified or prudent by discussing a wide range of cases drawn from the American jurisprudence. Although he does not engage in a significant way with political and legal philosophy and comparative law, his contextualist and pragmatic approach is a powerful antidote against oversimplification and dogmatism with regard to exemption claims. Unsurprisingly, Greenawalt’s approach comes at times dangerously close to casuistry, and some of his analyses and normative recommendations would benefit from a firmer footing in moral principles and rational argumentation. In this review, I flesh out some of the strengths and limits of Greenawalt’s valuable book. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1871-9791 1871-9805 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s11572-020-09553-6 |