Abstract
In a complex, plural society marked by deep moral disagreement, certain laws will require citizens to engage in conduct that, for some of them, violates their deeply held religious or moral principles. Coercing these persons to violate their conscience inflicts suffering on them and can cause alienation and even social division. Throughout American history, a common solution to this problem has been to apply the law in question generally but exempt conscientious objectors unless exemption would create significant harms to other individuals or social interests. Among the oldest and most common exemptions in U.S. federal and state law are those protecting objectors from participating in the taking of human life in several settings: war, capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia. As we discuss, this "right not to kill" is deeply rooted in U.S. law but is now under increasing pressure in certain situations. We describe, briefly, the sources of threats to the right not to kill and the details of significant issues in the above areas. We conclude with reflections on why the right should extend to nonreligious as well as religious grounds of objection, and on how to protect the right while also taking account of other interests.