James Rachel's Arguments Against Euthanasia

James Rachel’s argues against The Difference Thesis he says that the issue of active and passive euthanasia is not a morally relevant problem: there is no moral difference between killing and letting die (863-864). He believes that killing is not always worse than letting die. Rachel’s argument has exceptional impact on one’s ideas. He uses an example of two men Smith and Jones. Smith will inherit a large sum of money if something fatal were to happen to his 6 year .old cousin. Smith plots to kill his cousin and does so by drowning him in a bathtub. Jones’s situation is the same except when Jones goes to kill his cousin, he sees his cousin slip and drown. Instead of holding his cousin’s head underwater he stands by and watches as his cousin die. (865). Technically Jones didn’t do anything, he just let his cousin die he didn’t kill him like Smith did. However, it doesn’t make Jones’s actions any better than Smith’s. Rachel’s argument supports his belief that the difference between letting die and killing isn’t a moral problem. The problem seems to originate from the motive, or other factors and isn’t a moral issue. …show more content…
Active euthanasia allows doctors to do this in a humane way. After all passive and active euthanasia has the same outcome in the end, one just allows the patient peace quicker. People are just used to hearing killing is worse than dying because of how the media portrays both: “Most actual cases of killing are clearly terrible On the other hand, one hardly ever hears of a case of letting die, except for the actions of doctors who are motivated by humanitarian reasons. So one learns to think of killing in a much worse light than of letting die” (865). Rachel’s argument is effective because his example is strong and hard to dispute. Rachel showcases how withdrawing medication from a patient is an action: disproving The Difference