Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1):109–126 (2006)

Authors
Abstract
This paper examines the moral case for a right to religious accommodation, which requires that religious conduct be free of any serious burdens placed on it by the state. Two different types of normative argument for this right are outlined and rejected. The first appeals to religion as a ‘basic good’, and the second to religion as an ‘intense preference’. In place of these, I suggest that a third type of argument has greater prospects of success. Religious accommodation is justified on the grounds that religious conduct is a ‘derivative good’— that is, it derives its value from its being necessary for something else, namely, the integrity of the religious person
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00323.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,289
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare.Richard J. Arneson - 1989 - Philosophical Studies 56 (1):77 - 93.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Religion in the Law: The Disaggregation Approach.Cécile Laborde - 2015 - Law and Philosophy 34 (6):581-600.
Why Tolerate Conscience?François Boucher & Cécile Laborde - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (3):493-514.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
59 ( #179,291 of 2,445,216 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #457,173 of 2,445,216 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes