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
…show more content…
Rachael provides different examples of cases in which helps his conclusion. He has four different points which are “active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia” (Rachael, 1), “the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds” (Rachael, 1), “the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance” (Rachael, 1), and “the most common arguments in favour of the doctrine are invalid” (Rachael, 1). In these four points, he tries to argue and give reasons for why there is no moral difference between active and passive …show more content…
Rachael uses two cases to help support his argument. These two cases is really persuasive because it tells the reader that killing someone is the same thing as letting someone die and that they are immoral. Smith and Jones both had intention to kill the six-year-old cousin. Smith actually killed his cousin, but Jones watched him drown. Rachael tries to show that even though one directly killed the cousin and the other watched him die, they both killed the six-year-old cousin. Even though Jones just watched his cousin die and did not kill him directly. Jones still chose to let him die while he could have saved him. Moreover, it is the same thing if a doctor just let a patient die while the doctor could save the patient. Even though the doctor did not kill the patient directly, he still chose to let him die. If Rachael just gave us reasoning and did not give us two examples, then it wouldn’t be as persuasive. However, one might object that killing someone is worst then letting someone die because you are physically killing someone. Likewise, if you let someone die, you are not really physically killing them. But, Rachael gives two different points of views and goes in deep detail into why they are the same thing. Therefore, that is why this is persuasive because Rachael uses two compelling cases to help us understand that there is no moral
Rachael provides different examples of cases in which helps his conclusion. He has four different points which are “active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia” (Rachael, 1), “the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds” (Rachael, 1), “the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance” (Rachael, 1), and “the most common arguments in favour of the doctrine are invalid” (Rachael, 1). In these four points, he tries to argue and give reasons for why there is no moral difference between active and passive …show more content…
Rachael uses two cases to help support his argument. These two cases is really persuasive because it tells the reader that killing someone is the same thing as letting someone die and that they are immoral. Smith and Jones both had intention to kill the six-year-old cousin. Smith actually killed his cousin, but Jones watched him drown. Rachael tries to show that even though one directly killed the cousin and the other watched him die, they both killed the six-year-old cousin. Even though Jones just watched his cousin die and did not kill him directly. Jones still chose to let him die while he could have saved him. Moreover, it is the same thing if a doctor just let a patient die while the doctor could save the patient. Even though the doctor did not kill the patient directly, he still chose to let him die. If Rachael just gave us reasoning and did not give us two examples, then it wouldn’t be as persuasive. However, one might object that killing someone is worst then letting someone die because you are physically killing someone. Likewise, if you let someone die, you are not really physically killing them. But, Rachael gives two different points of views and goes in deep detail into why they are the same thing. Therefore, that is why this is persuasive because Rachael uses two compelling cases to help us understand that there is no moral