In this paper I uncover and critically analyze a methodological assumption in the literature on conscientious refusals in health care. The assumption is what I call the "Priority of Conscience Principle," which says the following: to determine the moral status of any act of conscientious refusal, it is first necessary to determine the nature and value of conscience. I argue that it is not always necessary to discuss conscience in the debate on conscientious refusals, and that discussing conscience is even problematic, since it can lead authors to beg the question.
Unless otherwise specified, "theodicy" will be used in this general way, to refer broadly to any attempt to explain the ultimate origin of evil in such a way that God is not made morally responsible for it. i am, of course, using the term 'theodicy' here avant la lettre, since it entered the philosophical lexicon via leibniz's response to Bayle only after the latter's death.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.