The Difference Between Killing And Letting Die

988 Words2 Pages

There are many different takes on the distinction between killing and letting die. Direct killing is designed as a direct action to kill a person. Yet, letting die is designed to reduced pain and suffering. Some argue that there is no difference in the two, but others argue there is a significant difference. Rachels, Nesbitt, and Callahan all argue their claims about the distinctions of killing and letting die. Altogether, they have very insightful arguments and each should be considered carefully.

Rachels has a very strong opinion about the distinction of killing and letting die. He claims that there is little to no moral difference between actively killing and passively letting die (Hilliard, Exam 3 Med Ethics). Rachels states, "The idea …show more content…

590). Therefore, Nesbitt claims there is a moral difference between killing and letting die. Nesbitt argues the difference thesis: that killing is morally worse then simply letting someone die (Nesbitt, p. 590). Nesbitt uses claims against Rachels to argue that in fact that killing is worse than letting die. Nesbitt states, "It would be generally accepted, I think, quite independently of the present debate, that someone who is fully prepared to perform a reprehensible action, in the expectation of certain circumstances, but does not do so because the expected circumstances do not eventuate, is just as reprehensible as someone who actually performs that action in those circumstances" (Nesbitt, p. 591). With this being said, someone who is prepared to do a wrong action in expectations of something, but does not do so because the expectations do not occur as a result is just as wrong as someone that performs the wrong action. Yet, Nesbitt claims that this does not provide strong enough evidence that letting someone die is as blameworthy as killing someone. Lastly Nesbitt states, "[W]hich is to say that killing is indeed morally worse than letting die" (Nesbitt, p. 593). Altogether, Nesbitt opposes that there is no moral differences between killing someone and letting

Show More
Related

  • Judith Thomson Killing And Letting Die Problem Summary

    1063 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomson describes her perplexity with the “killing vs. letting die problem” by engaging the reader with a scenario that clearly illustrates how killing and letting die are both on par with each other. Thomson also encourages the reader to

    Read More

  • Comparing James Rachel's Article 'Active And Passive Euthanasia'

    834 Words  | 2 Pages

    James Rachels tells us in his article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” about two cases that involve in killing and letting die. He believes that there is no morally difference between killing and letting them die. I openly agree with the reasons James Rachels provided in his article. He gives us two different situations where one is involved in killing and another letting them die. Smith and Jones were planning on getting a decent amount of money from the death of their nephew, so they wanted the child dead.

    Read More

  • According To James Rachel's Effective And Active Euthanasia

    1283 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to James Rachels, “both passive and active euthanasia are permissible.” (Luper and Brown, p.347). He gives a doctrine from American Medical Association quoting,” mercy killing is contrary to which the medical professional stands” (Luper and Brown, p. 347). He makes arguments against the doctrine as to why it would be rejected. One, a physician should let the patient end his life if he wants to so that the patient does not have to endure the suffering. However, Rachels says in that situation it’s better for the physician to kill the patient, rather than letting one die because using lethal injections can be painless and quick, whereas, letting one die can be a slow and painful process (Luper and Brown, p. 348). He points out two

    Read More

  • Euthanasia: The James Rachel and Sullivan´s Arguments

    1424 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...an’s argument. I have shown that intention has nothing to do with how active euthanasia is being performed and I have shown that James Rachel’s has great examples on explaining that there is no difference in passive euthanasia or active euthanasia. Thirdly I have shown that James Rachel’s premises follow from his conclusions not just from the conclusion itself. Also I have given one of his main weaknesses in his argument. Moving forward to Sullivan I have explained how his reasons make no sense according to James Rachel’s. I have also shown Sullivan’s main weaknesses and one of his strong points against Rachel’s. I also gave some of Rachel’s weaknesses but after all I think that I have proven that Rachel’s argument is stronger than Thomas Sullivan for many reasons. Lastly, I have given my own ideas and theories of which argument I think is better.

    Read More

  • Bonnie Steinbock The Morality Of Euthanasia

    1590 Words  | 4 Pages

    In “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels, he believed that if the American Medical Association (AMA) accepts passive euthanasia, then active euthanasia should be permitted as well since passive euthanasia tends to cause more pain and suffering to the patient more than active euthanasia does, and both end with death. In “The Intentional Termination of Life” by Bonnie Steinbock, she does not argue against euthanasia, but instead, she focuses on the intention of doctors in the act of euthanasia. She believes that in certain cases of passive euthanasia, there could be other reasons to the act of removing or withholding treatment other than

    Read More

  • Rachels And Nesbitt On Active Euthanasia

    1202 Words  | 3 Pages

    There are many different stances one can take when considering active euthanasia versus passive euthanasia. Perhaps one may believe killing someone is far worse than letting someone die, or that there is no difference between killing and letting die. Rachels and Nesbit have different stances on killing versus letting die, both using the nasty cousins argument as an example. Rachels tries to show that there is no difference between killing and letting die and Nesbitt tries to show that killing is worse than letting die. Though Rachels and Nesbitt have well thought through views and examples, perhaps there is not just one side a reader can take, as it seems Rachels and Nesbitt have tried to make their readers believe. Perhaps both views are okay

    Read More

  • Active And Passive Euthanasia Analysis

    1018 Words  | 3 Pages

    In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.

    Read More

  • Analysis of George Orwell’s Essay, A Hanging

    671 Words  | 2 Pages

    The author realizes the wrongfulness in killing someone who’s living a healthy life, we see this when the author states, “I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide.” Even though he does not object to these actions he does not agree with them.

    Read More

  • Doctrine Of Acts And Omissions Research Paper

    568 Words  | 2 Pages

    Suppose something happens that it was within your power to prevent? If you didn’t have malicious intent, was it still you fault? Does letting someone die when you know you had the capability of saving them in turn make you a murderer? All of these are questions that philosophical thinkers have tried to answer for centuries. The Doctrine of Acts and Omissions holds that it is morally worse to commit an act that brings about a bad event than it would be merely to allow the event to take place by not doing anything to prevent its occurrence. In essence, there is an intrinsic moral difference between acting and the failure to act. In some ways, we bear more responsibility for what comes about as a result of our doing something than for what comes about as a result of our allowing it to happen. A proponent of the Doctrine of Acts and Omissions would say than in certain circumstances, killing is morally worse than letting die. Failing to give aid to someone bleeding out from an accidental amputation is no doubt bad, but surely not as bad as cutting their arm off in the first place.

    Read More

  • How Is Lennie Justified In Of Mice And Men

    638 Words  | 2 Pages

    While killing is most certainly wrong, there are some cases where it may be necessary. For instance, cases of euthanasia people want to die because they are terminally ill. People terminally ill are suffering, and they don’t want to live on life support for the rest of their lives because they can’t do anything anyways. They feel as if there is no purpose because they sit on a bed all day.

    Read More

  • John Harris Experiment Of The Survival Lottery

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    The goal of this paper is to examine John Harris’ experiment of the “Survival Lottery.” Specifically, I want to argue that the lottery makes too high a demand on us to give up our lives. Especially, when I’m pretty sure everyone wants to live. Prior accounts show that Harris proposes that if the argument of the distinction between “killing” and “letting die” is properly contrived, then killing one person to save two could happen on a regular basis. It would be an exception to the obligation not to kill innocent people in regards to the argument that there is a distinction between "killing" and "letting die.” The difference between killing and letting die presents a moral difference. As far as this argument we are obligated not to kill. I

    Read More

  • Active Euthanasia In Star Trek: The Next Generation

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Jackers (2007), Rachels divides euthanasia into active euthanasia and passive euthanasia (p.77). “The 116th episode of the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation” mainly talks about Worf became a paraplegic due to an accident. In Worf’s opinion, it is time to put an end to his life because he was not able to accept this fact as an honorable warrior. It’s a kind of active euthanasia. About this episode, there are three types of ethical rules to be considered. One is to maximize happiness of patients from the perspective of utilitarianism, one is don’t do harm to patients from the perspective of deontology, one is to respect patients’ wishes from the perspective of deontology.

    Read More

  • Morality Of Euthanasia In The Movie 'Million Dollar Baby'

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    The reason so is that we have no way to figure from Rachels’ argument that Maggie’s decision was based in ethics. Rachels only discusses the morality of euthanasia in his argument. We can figure from his argument that Maggie’s decision was morally acceptable. However, we can conclude from other sources like Kant, Aristotle, and Nozick, that her decision was ethically acceptable. The way Maggie’s death was executed was not ethically acceptable, based on Kant’s principles. Rachels’ argument did not provide any argument or information on whether or not euthanasia or active euthanasia is ethically permissible. “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” (Mark

    Read More

  • John Steinbeck's Arguments Against Euthanasia

    1167 Words  | 3 Pages

    I think that killing, in very rare cases can be justified, some call it a mercy killing, or euthanasia, some people use those terms just to justify what they did, others actually believe it was the right thing to do. I mean, if you have a friend or a relative who's dying a painful drawn out death, wouldn't you want to end their suffering? Maybe not you yourself do it, but you would want them to die happy, a painless death. Others would argue that death itself is painful, although that might be true, there are some cases where someone dies and they don't feel anything at all, they feel no pain, they don't suffer, they could die happy, it all depends on the situation, but when it comes to having to decide, its hard. Not everyone will agree with your decision, but deep down you know what you need to

    Read More

  • Against Abortion Persuasive Speech

    1030 Words  | 3 Pages

    It takes two to tango The decision of taking a life shouldn’t be left in the hands of a poor decision. Imagine not having any say in whether or not you want to live. Babies for example have no say in a mother’s womb, but they can feel and sense what the mother is feeling. A reason to demolish an unborn child’s future should not exist for any means.

    Read More

More about The Difference Between Killing And Letting Die

Open Document