religion and profession

[cellio]

osewalrus posted an excellent essay on conflicts between religion and one's profession. He and I agree: you are completely free to practice your religion, but if doing so causes complications in your life, you -- not the rest of society -- need to deal with that.

Comments

part 2 of 2

[cellio]

I believe the reason you do not wish to permit these people an "exception of conscience" is because you disagree with them. Were the conscience objection about something you felt strongly, you would side with them.

I don't think that's the case. I invite you to propose a scenario.

I feel very strongly that (1) I have an obligation to live a moral and ethical life in accordance with the principles I have come to understand, (2) that has costs, and (3) that's my problem, not yours. If my ethics compel me to intervene in a situation, I must do it in a way that is consistent with those principles. For example, suppose I think the proposed nuclear plant in town will poison the atmosphere and kill my family -- that's clearly something I care about. (It's also a ficticious example.) I will try like hell to block their access through legal channels -- zoning hearings, lobbying my representatives, publicizing the threat to rally the neighbors, applying whatever market forces are relevant, and so on. I will not simply turn tail and move (I was there first and that would be a PITA), though if I lose I might conclude that I have to to protect myself. But I don't get to lace the building site with land mines (that miraculously destroy equipment but not people), or hack their financial systems to prevent payment to their contractors and employees (in hopes that they'll quit).

Here's one a little closer to home. Suppose I work for a government contractor (true), and suppose we are told to work on a domestic-spying program (false, just to be absolutely clear about this). I won't work on the project, at the risk of my company not having enough unobjectionable work to go around. I know people who would work on the project but deliberately introduce bugs; I would not. My choices are to do the work honestly, be excused from the work, or seek out a more-agreeable employer. I think this is analogous to the pharmacist who has a personal (as opposed to objective) objection to a legal prescription.

I wonder what a study would show comparing the number of "nothing can be done" calls compared to "CPR initiated" calls for the half hour before a shift change compared to a half hour anywhere else in the shift.

I don't wonder. I may be a cynic sometimes, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one. :-(

If you remove the people with consciences

Who said anything about removing the people with consciences? Heavens no! But do not make the mistake of assuming that there is one universal idea about what acts are conscientious and what ones are not. That is the problem: the employer's and customer's consciences permit an act that the employee's conscience does not permit, and the employee attempts to make a unilateral decision.

Are you ok with the idea of, say, the guy at the all-night emergency vet clinic saying "sorry, I don't think people should own birds so I won't treat yours -- go see your vet in the morning"? How is that different from the pharmacist and the rape victim who wants to prevent conception?

Again, in this particular thread we've been talking about emergency situations (mostly), but I think the real issue isn't about emergencies -- it's about taking a job where, as a matter of course, you will run into duties that you find objectionable. Everyone's stressed in an emergency and we make the best calls we can, but if you know that you're going to run into a problem and you take the job anyway, without making arrangements with your employer, then you have erred.