Active Euthanasia Is Not Morally Worse Than Passive Euthanasia

1330 Words Nov 13th, 2015 6 Pages
In James Rachael’s article “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” he argues that active euthanasia isn’t any worse than passive euthanasia. Likewise, killing someone is not as worse than letting someone die. Also, that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Rachael provides different points to help support her argument. The point I will be discussing in this essay is that there is no moral importance between killing and letting someone die. I will be critically analyzing Rachael’s argument on this point and if the point is persuasive, strong, and valid. Ultimately, to see if his argument is relevant and if it helps his overall conclusion. The overall argument in Rachael’s article is that if active euthanasia is any worse than passive euthanasia. Rachael talks about how there is not any moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Rachael uses different case examples to try to prove that active euthanasia is not morally worse than passive euthanasia. For instances, if you see a person dying and you have a chance at saving their life, but you do not. It is basically the same as if you went and killed that person. Basically what he is trying to argue is that, watching or letting a person die is the same as if you kill that person. There is not really that much of a moral difference between the two. They are both immoral. The conclusion that Rachael has come to is that, there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia.…

Related Documents