Abstract
The discourse about conscientious objection is becoming increasingly relevant today. Some dispute it, while others see it as the last defense of their beliefs against the onslaught of ethical relativism and an increasing number of permissive laws. The paper emphasizes that conscientious objection is an act of faithfulness to oneself, that is, to one’s belief. The dignity of man, created in the image of Good and called to discover the truth, dictates that he discovers the truth in his conscience and makes free decisions that are in accordance with the known truth, that is, his belief. In this context, the fundamental right of every person is self-determination and making decisions in accordance with our beliefs because our actions simultaneously determine our personality. Therefore, conscientious objection cannot be seen as a conflict between believers and non-believers because the requirement to live according to one’s conscience, given that it stems from the very dignity of the person and their nature, binds every person regardless of their worldview. In the end, conscientious objection is not disobedience to the law or some anti-juridical position but an aspiration to express the correct spirit of the law that does not contradict the inalienable rights of the human person. In particular, conscientious objection is not a passive position where we jealously guard our safety and our space of personal freedom; that is a kind of escape from responsibility, refraining from taking action or transferring responsibility to another. Conscientious objection is a renunciation of one’s own comfort and an expression of courage to oppose imposed laws. It is a form of civic responsibility and religious courage to actively stand up for Good and, at the same time, an authentic way of witnessing the value of personal freedom.