James Rachels

Question 1

Be prepared to explain the why the distinction between killing and letting die is thought to be relevant for the impermissibility of active euthanasia and the permissibility of passive euthanasia.

Answer 1

James Rachels explains that the distinction between killing and letting die is important when considering active and passive euthanasia. Killing involves actively taking an action to end someone’s life, while letting die means allowing a natural death to occur by withholding treatment. Rachels argues that the moral difference between these actions is not as significant as it is often thought to be. He believes that if passive euthanasia (letting die) is acceptable, then active euthanasia (killing) should also be considered permissible in cases of suffering and choice.

Question 2

Be capable of explaining why Rachels thinks his example concerning down syndrome infants who are withheld treatment

Answer 2

James Rachels uses the example of Down syndrome infants who are withheld treatment to show that the distinction between killing and letting die is morally problematic. In cases where treatment is withheld, the infant will die naturally, which is considered “letting die.” However, actively killing a Down syndrome infant to prevent suffering would be labeled as “killing.” Rachels argues that morally, there is no significant difference between actively killing to end suffering and allowing a natural death by withholding treatment, especially when both result in the same outcome. Letting die can also be considered morally impermissible because it can lead to more suffering when treatment could prevent pain or prolong life.

Question 3

Be capable of explaining his thought experiment involving Smith and Jones demonstrate that killing is not inherently worse than letting die

Answer 3

James Rachels introduces a thought experiment with Smith and Jones to show that killing is not worse than letting die. Smith wants to inherit his cousin’s wealth and drowns the child to ensure the cousin’s death. Jones, on the other hand, has the same opportunity but does nothing as the child accidentally drowns. Rachels argues that the moral outcomes are essentially the same because both lead to the same result: the child’s death. This demonstrates that killing is not inherently worse than letting die, as both actions can lead to the same consequences.

Question 4

Take a stance on whether and why you agree with Rachel’s position that killing is not inherently worse than letting die.

Answer 4

I agree with Rachels’ position that killing is not inherently worse than letting die because both actions can lead to the same outcome. For example, if a dying patient is suffering from a terminal illness, a doctor could either actively administer medication to end their pain and hasten death (killing) or withhold treatment and allow the natural progression of the illness to take its course (letting die). Both actions lead to the same outcome: the patient’s death, but one is active while the other is passive. Morally, the focus should be on reducing suffering and respecting the patient’s wishes rather than strictly distinguishing between the two actions.