It is morally worse to kill than to let die. Rachels argues that the difference thesis is false. Common moral intuition would say that my actions in A are worse than my actions in B. But Rachels would say that what explains our view about the cases is not the bare fact that the first involves a killing whereas the latter involves a letting die.
In certain situations, passive euthanasia "letting die" is morally permissible. However, active euthanasia physician-assisted death is never morally permissible. Doctors can withhold treatment in many circumstances, and does nothing wrong if the patient dies, but the doctor must never, ever "kill" the patient.
In situations for which passive euthanasia is permissible under this justification, there are no morally sound reason for prohibiting active euthanasia, and in some cases, active euthanasia is morally preferable to passive euthanasia.
Rachels says that he can understand someone who opposes both active and passive euthanasia as immoral practices, but cannot make sense of approving of one and not the other.
The basis of the conventional doctrine is the distinction between "killing" and "letting die," together with the assumption that the difference between killing and letting die must, by itself and apart from further consequences, constitute a genuine moral difference. Although most actual cases of killing are morally worse than most actual cases of letting die, we are more familiar with cases of killing especially the terrible ones that are reported in the mediabut we are less familiar with the details of letting die.
This gap leads us to believe that killing is always worse.
the difference thesis can only be applied to cases where the only choice is to kill or let die (not: kill or not kill) Euthanasia an act of killing or letting die such that (1) the death benefits the person who dies and (2) the agent is motivated to do what is good for the person & intends to benefit him or her. They have defended the Equivalence Thesis, which says that killing and letting die are goes, the difference between killing and letting die is not morally important. euthanasia the intention may be only to end the dying person’s suffering. And as for the. Thesis statements are usually presented as part of the opening of an assignment or essay. In order to compose a successful thesis statement regarding euthanasia, the first step is deciding which side of the argument the paper will take. The thesis statement can be built around the chosen argument.
First argument against the conventional doctrine is that many cases of "letting die" are WORSE for the patient than is killing them. If the patient is going to die either way, why is it morally permissible to dehydrate them to death?
Either way, the patient is dead. But the conventional doctrine often adds a requirement of suffering before dying. The refusal of treatment to some "defective" newborns, and the subsequent death by dehydration, shows that some cases of letting die are worse than killing.
Second argument is the Bathtub Example of Smith and Jones. It demonstrates that some cases of letting die are at least as bad as killing. Therefore, in many cases where it is right to let a patient die, it is also right to practice active euthanasia. Notice that Rachels does not defend active euthanasia killingbecause he never defends the morality of passive euthanasia.
His goal is to challenge the distinction. In a case where "letting die" is immoral, killing may also be immoral. If "letting die" is always immoral, then one might have a sound moral reason to object to active euthanasia, too.assisted suicide difference thesis euthanasia involuntary euthanasia moral difference thought experiment thought experiments utilitarianism voluntary euthanasia Annotations Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”.
In the following I will compare and contrast passive and active euthanasia, discuss whether there is a moral difference between them, and mount a defense of the thesis, that in most cases there is no real moral difference .
Section: Philosophy Article: “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels Author’s Thesis: There is no principal difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Argument for Rachel’s Thesis: Active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia.
Active vs. Passive Euthanasia Essay. The debate on killing versus letting die is a difficult topic to address due to the emotional weight of the subject and the challenge presented by taking a purely rational approach to assessing the resulting moral implications - Active vs.
Passive Euthanasia . NESBITT’S “IS KILLING NO WORSE THAN LETTING DIE?” The “difference thesis”: It is morally worse to kill than to let die. offers what he takes to be the most powerful argument in defense of the distinction between active and passive euthanasia.
If we examine the difference between passive and active euthanasia from a deontologists (Kant’s) point of view we can come to a similar conclusion. One of his basic insights is that morality is a matter of motives and intentions, and not a matter of consequences (Kant).