Conscience and the burden inquiry : what should be investigated in exemption cases, and why?

2021
journal article
article
1
cris.lastimport.wos2024-04-09T18:43:24Z
dc.abstract.enThe article focuses on a crucial segment of a discussion regarding the legitimacy of conscientious exemptions, namely the burden inquiry. The controversy around this issue involves different ways of identifying the proper object of the inquiry, and the types of evidence that should be considered in the assessment. I claim that there are three main approaches in the discussion regarding these issues: the incommensurable religious costs account, the subjective religious costs account, and the objective religious costs account. In the article, the peculiarity of each position is highlighted and the evaluation of main arguments is provided. I argue that the main justifications advanced for the incommensurable religious costs account and the subjective religious costs account do not stand up to critical scrutiny, and that the objective religious costs account is the most plausible position in this debate.pl
dc.affiliationWydział Prawa i Administracji : Katedra Teorii Prawapl
dc.contributor.authorCiszewski, Wojciech - 108857 pl
dc.date.accession2021-12-29pl
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-29T18:30:27Z
dc.date.available2021-12-29T18:30:27Z
dc.date.issued2021pl
dc.date.openaccess0
dc.description.accesstimew momencie opublikowania
dc.description.additionalStreszcz. ang. s. 133. Bibliogr. w przypisach. W tym samym numerze Oxford Journal of Law and Religion na stronie 184 ukazała się errata do artykułu ( https://academic.oup.com/ojlr/article/10/1/184/6425568 )pl
dc.description.number1pl
dc.description.physical133-154pl
dc.description.points140pl
dc.description.publication1,2pl
dc.description.versionostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.description.volume10pl
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ojlr/rwab002pl
dc.identifier.eissn2047-0789pl
dc.identifier.issn2047-0770pl
dc.identifier.project2015/17/B/HS1/ 02279pl
dc.identifier.urihttps://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/286215
dc.identifier.weblinkhttps://academic.oup.com/ojlr/article/10/1/133/6248246?login=truepl
dc.languageengpl
dc.language.containerengpl
dc.participationCiszewski, Wojciech: 100%;pl
dc.pbn.affiliationDziedzina nauk społecznych : nauki prawnepl
dc.rightsUdzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowa*
dc.rights.licenceCC-BY
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.pl*
dc.share.typeotwarte czasopismo
dc.subject.enconsciencepl
dc.subject.enfreedom of religionpl
dc.subject.enreligionpl
dc.subject.plsumieniepl
dc.subject.plwolność religiipl
dc.subject.plreligiapl
dc.subtypeArticlepl
dc.titleConscience and the burden inquiry : what should be investigated in exemption cases, and why?pl
dc.title.journalOxford Journal of Law and Religionpl
dc.typeJournalArticlepl
dspace.entity.typePublication
cris.lastimport.wos
2024-04-09T18:43:24Z
dc.abstract.enpl
The article focuses on a crucial segment of a discussion regarding the legitimacy of conscientious exemptions, namely the burden inquiry. The controversy around this issue involves different ways of identifying the proper object of the inquiry, and the types of evidence that should be considered in the assessment. I claim that there are three main approaches in the discussion regarding these issues: the incommensurable religious costs account, the subjective religious costs account, and the objective religious costs account. In the article, the peculiarity of each position is highlighted and the evaluation of main arguments is provided. I argue that the main justifications advanced for the incommensurable religious costs account and the subjective religious costs account do not stand up to critical scrutiny, and that the objective religious costs account is the most plausible position in this debate.
dc.affiliationpl
Wydział Prawa i Administracji : Katedra Teorii Prawa
dc.contributor.authorpl
Ciszewski, Wojciech - 108857
dc.date.accessionpl
2021-12-29
dc.date.accessioned
2021-12-29T18:30:27Z
dc.date.available
2021-12-29T18:30:27Z
dc.date.issuedpl
2021
dc.date.openaccess
0
dc.description.accesstime
w momencie opublikowania
dc.description.additionalpl
Streszcz. ang. s. 133. Bibliogr. w przypisach. W tym samym numerze Oxford Journal of Law and Religion na stronie 184 ukazała się errata do artykułu ( https://academic.oup.com/ojlr/article/10/1/184/6425568 )
dc.description.numberpl
1
dc.description.physicalpl
133-154
dc.description.pointspl
140
dc.description.publicationpl
1,2
dc.description.version
ostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.description.volumepl
10
dc.identifier.doipl
10.1093/ojlr/rwab002
dc.identifier.eissnpl
2047-0789
dc.identifier.issnpl
2047-0770
dc.identifier.projectpl
2015/17/B/HS1/ 02279
dc.identifier.uri
https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/286215
dc.identifier.weblinkpl
https://academic.oup.com/ojlr/article/10/1/133/6248246?login=true
dc.languagepl
eng
dc.language.containerpl
eng
dc.participationpl
Ciszewski, Wojciech: 100%;
dc.pbn.affiliationpl
Dziedzina nauk społecznych : nauki prawne
dc.rights*
Udzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowa
dc.rights.licence
CC-BY
dc.rights.uri*
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.pl
dc.share.type
otwarte czasopismo
dc.subject.enpl
conscience
dc.subject.enpl
freedom of religion
dc.subject.enpl
religion
dc.subject.plpl
sumienie
dc.subject.plpl
wolność religii
dc.subject.plpl
religia
dc.subtypepl
Article
dc.titlepl
Conscience and the burden inquiry : what should be investigated in exemption cases, and why?
dc.title.journalpl
Oxford Journal of Law and Religion
dc.typepl
JournalArticle
dspace.entity.type
Publication
Affiliations

* The migration of download and view statistics prior to the date of April 8, 2024 is in progress.

Views
16
Views per month
Views per city
Ashburn
2
Wroclaw
2
Dublin
1
Krakow
1
Poznan
1
Downloads
ciszewski_conscience_and_the_burden_inquiry_2021.pdf
4
ciszewski_conscience_and_the_burden_inquiry_2021.odt
1