Christianity says, of course, that every human being is made in the image of God, so all human life is sacred. The traditional theory must be taken seriously; not only has its influence been enormous, but from a philosophical point of view it is the only fully worked-out, systematically elaborated theory of the subject we have.
The critical fact is that, when her husband shot her, her life was already over. The species of the subject of the life, and the means that are used, as well as the intention with which the act is done, are all more or less irrelevant.
He explained that he killed her because, being seventeen years older, he did not want to die first and leave her alone.
From a moral point of view, it is the protection of lives that is important, and so, because most humans have lives, killing them is objectionable.
Then her vocabulary shrank to two words: Therefore, in many cases where it is right to let a patient die, it is also right to practice active euthanasia.
The morality of euthanasia An absolute rule? It demonstrates that some cases of letting die are at least as bad as killing. Only by paying careful attention to the concept of a life can we understand the value of life and the evil of death.
If this seems a truism, remember Mrs Florian. Was it wrong for Hans Florian to have killed his wife? Hume realized that our thinking about even the most commonplace matters may be corrupted by false assumptions--and we may take these assumptions so much for granted that we never even think of questioning them.
As one might suspect, the implication for Mrs Florian is different from the implication of the traditional view. Its development has been one of the great intellectual achievements of Western culture, accomplished by thinkers of great ingenuity and high moral purpose.
The material presented in this essay adds up to a systematic argument against the traditional view and a defence of an alternative account. We absorb the prejudices of our culture and the mistakes of our parents, mix in the pronouncements of our religion, add the influence of our selfishness, and then regard the resulting belief as the merest common sense.
If the Equivalence Thesis is true, this combination of beliefs is inconsistent.1 Active and Passive Euthanasia by James Rachels () Abstract The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis.
The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the.
Please check,James Rachels’s Defense of Active Euthanasia: A Critical & Normative Study in my thesis section. Killing And Letting Die Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die? It seems obvious to common The Equivalence Thesis is a radical conception that would require changes in our --James Rachels.
6 Bennett, Jonathan, The Act Itself (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Issue,No.4 December Killing and Letting Die: An Irrelevant Distinction to Bioethics Mohammad Manzoor Malik∗ Abstract James Rachels’s distinction between killing and letting die maintains that there is morally no difference between killing a terminally ill patient and letting him/her die.
I conclude, then, that the Bare Difference Argument is indeed sound and that the Equivalence Thesis is true. The pair of cases Rachels offers do support this conclusion since (with a tiny modification I consider alrcady implicit in Rachels’ argument) we have two cases alike in all morally relevant respects, save that one is a case of killing.
They have defended the Equivalence Thesis, which says that killing and letting die are equally bad. This is a more specific version of the idea that there is no moral difference between making something happen and allowing it to happen.Download