Response to commentaries: ‘Further clarity on cooperation and morality’

Merely failing to follow her sincere belief that she is an illicit cooperator attaches no moral guilt to the objector, unless she be in invincible ignorance; though even here theologians disagree. [...]following an invincibly erroneous conscience-the woman who believes it her ethical or religious du...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of medical ethics 2017-04, Vol.43 (4), p.204-205
Main Author: Oderberg, David S
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bioethics
Commentary
Conscientious objectors
Cooperation
Ethics
Humans
Interpersonal Relations
Morality
Morals
Theology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Merely failing to follow her sincere belief that she is an illicit cooperator attaches no moral guilt to the objector, unless she be in invincible ignorance; though even here theologians disagree. [...]following an invincibly erroneous conscience-the woman who believes it her ethical or religious duty to have an abortion and is in no position to be corrected-may remove any guilt in the 'internal forum', as theologians like to say, but it hardly-assuming abortion to be wrong-absolves her of guilt in the external forum. [...]a conscientious objector, on my position, has a 'double lock' against coercion-the ethical principles of cooperation themselves, which might forbid cooperation tout court, and the possible consequences of mandating compliance with the law where cooperation is not ruled out from the start.
ISSN:0306-6800
1473-4257
DOI:10.1136/medethics-2016-104082