Conflict between Job and Faith

[McCulloch]

A Target pharmacist refused to fill a script for an emergency contraceptive, which has launched an assault by Planned Parenthood and other similar organizations to determine Target's policy regarding BC and emergency contraceptive.

Will it matter if the person applied for and got the job before pharmaceutical companies made this drug or started doing something which he thinks contradicts his values?

Question for debate, "Should a person be allowed to refuse to perform a portion of his or her job due to religious values?"
Assume for discussion that the task in question volates the person's religious values, is not generally considered illegal or immoral outside of the person's religion and was not part of the person's job when the person was hired.

[plunge]

At the end of the day, if the person does his job badly, he gets fired, regardless of why he does it badly. It's a common-sense business practice.

Ah, but by whose definition of "badly"?

Well, I would: whomever is footing the bill. Just as it would be unethical to force a person to do something against their religious beliefs, it's unethical to expect someone to pay for something they don't want. If a pharmacy doesn't want non-contraceptive deploying pharmacists, then why should they be forced to support them with a job?

Are Bill and Joe going to get angry about missing the game, or are they going to applaud the cable company for having such devout employees?

Bill and Joe can get angry, and even quit paying for cable service. If they don't like the service provided, they can take their business elsewhere. If the cable company decides it wants their business, it can try to hire employees who can work Sundays. It all works out as long as no one is being forced to pay for things they don't want.

[Curious]

Question for debate, "Should a person be allowed to refuse to perform a portion of his or her job due to religious values?"
Assume for discussion that the task in question volates the person's religious values, is not generally considered illegal or immoral outside of the person's religion and was not part of the person's job when the person was hired.

Of course a person has the right to refuse to perform such an act. It would be right for a German prison guard to refuse to gas a million Jews. The Japanese were rightly vilified for their willingness to abnegate personal responsibility with respect to state orders in WWII. as were the Germans. Such decisions cannot be simply entrusted to a few faceless bureaucrats with no personal responsibility by the actuator.

[McCulloch]

Question for debate, "Should a person be allowed to refuse to perform a portion of his or her job due to religious values?"
Assume for discussion that the task in question volates the person's religious values, is not generally considered illegal or immoral outside of the person's religion and was not part of the person's job when the person was hired.

Of course a person has the right to refuse to perform such an act. It would be right for a German prison guard to refuse to gas a million Jews. The Japanese were rightly vilified for their willingness to abnegate personal responsibility with respect to state orders in WWII. as were the Germans. Such decisions cannot be simply entrusted to a few faceless bureaucrats with no personal responsibility by the actuator.

Your examples do not fit within the framework of the question. They are all generally considered illegal or immoral outside of the person's religion. Yes, it would be right for a German prison guard to refuse to gas Jews, not because it is against the German prison guard's religion but because that act is considered to be immoral by almost every system of human ethics. The question for debate relates to those issues which the employee can only cite his religion as a reason to refuse.

[Curious]

Question for debate, "Should a person be allowed to refuse to perform a portion of his or her job due to religious values?"
Assume for discussion that the task in question volates the person's religious values, is not generally considered illegal or immoral outside of the person's religion and was not part of the person's job when the person was hired.

Of course a person has the right to refuse to perform such an act. It would be right for a German prison guard to refuse to gas a million Jews. The Japanese were rightly vilified for their willingness to abnegate personal responsibility with respect to state orders in WWII. as were the Germans. Such decisions cannot be simply entrusted to a few faceless bureaucrats with no personal responsibility by the actuator.

Your examples do not fit within the framework of the question. They are all generally considered illegal or immoral outside of the person's religion. Yes, it would be right for a German prison guard to refuse to gas Jews, not because it is against the German prison guard's religion but because that act is considered to be immoral by almost every system of human ethics. The question for debate relates to those issues which the employee can only cite his religion as a reason to refuse.

Thou shalt not kill is a religious commandment.
You do to me as you do to the least of my children is also scriptural.
Nazi Germany portrayed Jews and blacks as sub-human and so the slaughter of such was seen as nothing more than culling or animal slaughter. Such action is not seen as morally wrong by everyone at all as many countries allow such activity on a daily basis.
Killing, in times of war, is not seen as wrong because the state says such action is permissible. Every conceivable method of mass slaughter has been used without the slightest compunction in times of conflict by almost every country in the world. In times of war, such atrocities are state sanctioned and so the individual revokes all personal responsibility concerning their part. It is wrong to burn babies but this is what happened in Dresden, Hiroshima and Vietnam. People tend to do what they are told if they are shouted at loudly enough and are told there will be no personal consequence. Those who believe in a higher power realise that the state cannot deliver on such an outrageous promise.
So please tell me the difference between the murder of Jews, who were given sub-human status in Nazi Germany and, (in the mind of the pharmacist in question), the state sanctioned murder of the unborn child who are similarly given sub-human status by the pro-choice brigade.

[McCulloch]

Question for debate, "Should a person be allowed to refuse to perform a portion of his or her job due to religious values?"
Assume for discussion that the task in question volates the person's religious values, is not generally considered illegal or immoral outside of the person's religion and was not part of the person's job when the person was hired.

Of course a person has the right to refuse to perform such an act. It would be right for a German prison guard to refuse to gas a million Jews. The Japanese were rightly vilified for their willingness to abnegate personal responsibility with respect to state orders in WWII. as were the Germans. Such decisions cannot be simply entrusted to a few faceless bureaucrats with no personal responsibility by the actuator.

Your examples do not fit within the framework of the question. They are all generally considered illegal or immoral outside of the person's religion. Yes, it would be right for a German prison guard to refuse to gas Jews, not because it is against the German prison guard's religion but because that act is considered to be immoral by almost every system of human ethics. The question for debate relates to those issues which the employee can only cite his religion as a reason to refuse.

Thou shalt not kill is a religious commandment.

But it is not only a religious commandment. Every functioning society has some kind of prohibition on killing.

You do to me as you do to the least of my children is also scriptural.

I certainly hope that you would not bind this requirement on society in general by force of law.

Nazi Germany portrayed Jews and blacks as sub-human and so the slaughter of such was seen as nothing more than culling or animal slaughter. Such action is not seen as morally wrong by everyone at all as many countries allow such activity on a daily basis.

But subsequent to the war, the tribunals at Neuremborg, determined that there is a generally understood principal of Crimes against Humanity that the Nazi leaders were in violation of. There actions were morally wrong, not because they were against this or that religious code, but because they were against the ethics common to the human species.

Killing, in times of war, is not seen as wrong because the state says such action is permissible.

That is one way to look at it. However, most ethicists, take a different perspective. They would argue that the atrocities of war are justified only if the alternatives to going to war would lead to worse consequences. Few philosophers and many politicians argue for war simply because the state says that such action is permissible.

Every conceivable method of mass slaughter has been used without the slightest compunction in times of conflict by almost every country in the world. In times of war, such atrocities are state sanctioned and so the individual revokes all personal responsibility concerning their part. It is wrong to burn babies but this is what happened in Dresden, Hiroshima and Vietnam. People tend to do what they are told if they are shouted at loudly enough and are told there will be no personal consequence. Those who believe in a higher power realise that the state cannot deliver on such an outrageous promise.

There are many who do not believe in a higher power who also realize that the state cannot deliver as well.

So please tell me the difference between the murder of Jews, who were given sub-human status in Nazi Germany and, (in the mind of the pharmacist in question), the state sanctioned murder of the unborn child who are similarly given sub-human status by the pro-choice brigade.

There are those who claim to believe that aborted foetuses are human beings who should be given the protection and rights of other humans in our society. They claim that the Nazi sponsored mass killing of Jews and others who were given sub-human status by their policies is the same morally as abortion. And yet, they do not behave in a way consistent with that belief. Only a few act as a kind of resistance invoking terror against the regime that allows this alleged evil. And thos few are denounced as extremists by their fellow anti-abortionists.

[Curious]

Every functioning society has some kind of prohibition on killing.

What about societies that openly endorse cannibalism? There have been many so this does not seem to be true in fact.

I certainly hope that you would not bind this requirement on society in general by force of law.

God forbid that I, fallible as I am, should hold sway over the actions of others.

But subsequent to the war, the tribunals at Neuremborg, determined that there is a generally understood principal of Crimes against Humanity that the Nazi leaders were in violation of. There actions were morally wrong, not because they were against this or that religious code, but because they were against the ethics common to the human species.

But the human species, as seen in primitive societies, has no such common ethics. It would be nice, unfortunately it does not exist in reality.

That is one way to look at it. However, most ethicists, take a different perspective. They would argue that the atrocities of war are justified only if the alternatives to going to war would lead to worse consequences. Few philosophers and many politicians argue for war simply because the state says that such action is permissible.

And who says what is worse or better? Is 1000 lives lost better or worse than a 1% rise in inflation or a 50cent rise in the cost of a barrel of crude oil? When it comes down to it, moral ethicists don't say when we go to war, it is the politician and the economist.

I do, of course, realise that I might be in grave error. I can only judge according to what I believe to be right under a particular circumstance.

[McCulloch]

Every functioning society has some kind of prohibition on killing.

What about societies that openly endorse cannibalism? There have been many so this does not seem to be true in fact.

How many currently functioning societies openly endorse cannibalism?

But subsequent to the war, the tribunals at Neuremborg, determined that there is a generally understood principal of Crimes against Humanity that the Nazi leaders were in violation of. There actions were morally wrong, not because they were against this or that religious code, but because they were against the ethics common to the human species.

But the human species, as seen in primitive societies, has no such common ethics. It would be nice, unfortunately it does not exist in reality.

Yes, apparently we have developed a bit since our societies could have been described as primitive.

That is one way to look at it. However, most ethicists, take a different perspective. They would argue that the atrocities of war are justified only if the alternatives to going to war would lead to worse consequences. Few philosophers and many politicians argue for war simply because the state says that such action is permissible.

And who says what is worse or better? Is 1000 lives lost better or worse than a 1% rise in inflation or a 50cent rise in the cost of a barrel of crude oil? When it comes down to it, moral ethicists don't say when we go to war, it is the politician and the economist.

More the pity. I suspect it is more the economist than the politician.

[Curious]

Every functioning society has some kind of prohibition on killing.

What about societies that openly endorse cannibalism? There have been many so this does not seem to be true in fact.

How many currently functioning societies openly endorse cannibalism?

Not too many but there are plenty who endorse killing for reasons less "noble" than the quest for food. The prohibition you mention is only within certain limits and under certain circumstances. Killing is forbidden entirely by very few religions or societies.

But the human species, as seen in primitive societies, has no such common ethics. It would be nice, unfortunately it does not exist in reality.

Yes, apparently we have developed a bit since our societies could have been described as primitive.

There are still extant societies that could be described as primitive by our own standards. Judging by man's past record it seems that killing isn't seen as that much of a no-no.

[keltzkroz]

Regarding the initial post in this thread, I came across this news article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11076621/

Were these the pharmacists you were referring to? It seems that Illinois has an 'Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which allows health care providers to opt out of procedures they object to on moral grounds.'

[skeeterses]

Question for debate, "Should a person be allowed to refuse to perform a portion of his or her job due to religious values?"
I can't believe that this is even being debated. Of course, in America a person has the freedom of whether to accept a job or not. For example, if you're opposed to all forms of killing, you don't sign up for the Army. If you're opposed to giving out contraceptions, don't be a pharmacist. And if your particular religion requires you to be at a Church or Mosque all day on Sunday, don't be a fireman or a policeman.