Why does our society – and any society worthy of the name – work?

Because in principle we make our choices, and respect those who make their choices.

Hence most political controversy is, in a reductionist way, about the circumstances in which our choices might be forcibily limited or not for ‘wider and allegedly better, ‘all things considered’ purposes. And about the responsibility we have for the choices we make.

The abortion issue shows this in the most explicit way. A ‘pro-choice’ position  complements a woman’s right to choose to engage in the processes by which a child is conceived with her right to kill it before it is born. Plus the child itself is denied any choice. A ‘pro-choice’ position requires the male contributor to the child’s creation to have exactly no choices (or at least no legal way to express them) one way or the other.

This is an ultra-radical if ultimately banally sexist libertarian position. Yet the most fervent advocates of that position tend to be much less indulgent of eg a person’s choice to smoke, or to choose to run a private club in which those who want to smoke can do so. 

Or take car seat-belts. We are compelled by law in the UK to wear them even though we are pretty sure that at least some people who might otherwise survive a crash will die because of them. Since we expect more people to survive because of seat-belts than to die because of seat-belts, we all must wear them. We are denied a choice in the matter.

But this argument does not apply to capital punishment. There is a reasonable argument that on the margins rather fewer criminals will murder someone if they fear the death penalty. Even if it were demonstrated conclusively to be likely that overall more lives would be saved than lost under a capital punishment rule, our governments probably would decide not to execute guilty killers and accept that a number of innocent people would die gruesomely as a result.

So there is not much consistency in all this. That, I suppose, is Life.

But can we all not agree at least that if you are a professional person your choice not to take on a piece of work should be respected? Especially if as an honest professional you feel that your expertise does not cover the work required and that you might not do a good job? That your long years of training and the ethical base of your professional code impel you to make such choices – that you would be doing wrong by your client to take on a job which you feared you might not do well? 

In a free society should not that professional choice be upheld as an elementary no-brainer human right?

Apparently not?