Medical conscience exemptions After listening to a talk by Christopher Kaczor, and the ensuing discussion, I want to offer a defense of a moderate position on the state not compelling healthcare professionals to violate their conscience, even when their conscience is unreasonably mistaken. This is the central insight: It is a significant harm to an individual to violate their conscience, even when the conscience is irrationally mistaken.
Posted on May 16, by Scott Alexander I. I was delighted to see nydwracu say something similar in the comments to my recent post: At best I will call this post Kant-aligned. Second, I want to talk about how I find myself using Kantian principles in my own morality. Kant gives the following dilemma.
Suppose that an axe murderer comes to your door and demands you tell him where your friend is, so that he can kill her. Your friend in fact is in your basement.
You lie and tell the murderer your friend is in the next town over. Most people would say that the lie is justified. I think most people understand his argument as follows: But suppose everyone thought that all the time. Then everyone would lie to everyone else, and that would be horrible.
Kant urges us to reject actions which, if universalized, would be self-defeating or contradictory. Suppose you are a prisoner of war. Your captors tell you they want to kill your general, a brilliant leader who has led your side to victory after victory.
They have two options. First, a surgical strike against her secret headquarters, killing her and no one else. Second, nuking your capital city.
You point to a warehouse you know to be abandoned. Your captors send a cruise missile that blows up the warehouse, killing nobody. Then they hold a huge party to celebrate the death of the general.
With her brilliant tactics, your side wins the war and you are eventually rescued. So what about now? Was your lie ethical?
Your captors are offering you a positive-sum bargain: That leaves both of us better off. You are lost in the desert, about to die. The very selfish man agrees and drives you to safety.
So you both gain. This is not strictly Kantian. But it could still be framed as a positive-sum bargain. If the people in such a world were halfway rational, they would make a deal that rightists agree to hire leftists if leftists agree to hire rightists.
This would clearly be positive-sum. This is easy to say in natural language like this. But when you try to make it more formal it gets really sketchy real quick.
But what about other maxims that lead to the same action?John W. Etchemendy Jon Barwise, Dave Barker-Plummer. CSLI Publications The Concept of Logical Consequence.
John W. Etchemendy. CSLI Publications The Liar: an Essay on Truth and Circularity. John W. Etchemendy with Jon Barwise.
OUP Featured Articles "Reflections on Consequence". Dance Moms Season 3 Episode 4 Liar, Liar, Dance Mom on Fire! Pretty Little Liars Season 1 Episode 10 full episode long, Pretty Little Liars Season 1 Episode 10 youtube. A simple argument demonstrates that truth values cannot consistently be assigned to all of the S i, just as no truth value can consistently be assigned to the liar nationwidesecretarial.com suppose that some S n is true.
So, for all m > n, S m is false. A fortiori, for all m > n + 1, S m is false, and thus S n + 1 is true. Contradiction. Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE)..
Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good must be chosen over evil in order to achieve salvation. In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar's paradox is the statement of a liar who states that he or she is lying: for instance, declaring that "I am lying" or "everything I say is false".
If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar is lying.
Written by Trent Horn. Trent Horn holds a Master’s degree in Theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville and is currently an apologist and speaker for Catholic nationwidesecretarial.com specializes in training pro-lifers to intelligently and compassionately engage pro-choice advocates in genuine dialogue.