Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan, USA.
Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA.
J Med Philos. 2023 Feb 17;48(1):12-20. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhac033.
Robert Card has proposed a reasonability view of conscientious objection that asks providers to state the reasons for their objection for evaluation and approval by a review board. Jason Marsh has challenged Card to provide explicit criteria for what makes a conscientious objection reasonable, which he claims will be too difficult a task given that such objections often involve contentious metaphysical or religious claims. Card has responded by outlining standards by which a conscientious objection could be judged reasonable. In this paper, I extend Marsh's critique to key concepts in the standards outlined by Card such as abortifacient, harm, emergency, and discrimination, showing they can be given radically different interpretations given different metaphysical or religious presumptions. To resolve these conflicting interpretations, a reasonability view of conscientious objection will need more than the criteria outlined by Card, it will need the resources to evaluate the reasonability of metaphysical or religious claims.
罗伯特·卡德提出了一种出于良心拒服兵役的合理性观点，要求提供者陈述其反对的理由，以供审查委员会评估和批准。杰森·马什曾质疑卡德提供明确的标准，以确定何种出于良心拒服兵役是合理的，他声称这将是一项极其困难的任务，因为此类异议通常涉及有争议的形而上学或宗教主张。卡德回应称，概述了判断出于良心拒服兵役合理的标准。在本文中，我将马什的批评扩展到卡德所概述标准中的关键概念，如堕胎、伤害、紧急情况和歧视，表明鉴于不同的形而上学或宗教假设，这些概念可以有截然不同的解释。为了解决这些相互冲突的解释，出于良心拒服兵役的合理性观点不仅需要卡德所概述的标准，还需要评估形而上学或宗教主张合理性的资源。
