Rachels 'An Analysis Of Active And Passive Euthanasia'

In the article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia” the author Rachels argues that both passive and active euthanasia are permitted. Active euthanasia is purely known as taking a positive action, which is designed to kill the patient who is incurably ill. Passive euthanasia, on the contrary, means easily holding back from doing anything to keep the patient alive. To further explain what Rachels suggests, he uses two cases as an example. First he gives the scenario of Smith who will inherit a large sum of money if his six year old nephew dies. Smith “sneaks” into the bathroom while his nephew is in the bathtub; he pushes his nephew’s head under the water, and drowns him. Smith makes this look like an accident and inherits the money. On the other hand Jones also has a similar scenario. He “sneaks” into the bathroom, he sees his nephew slides, hit his head, and he lands face down in the tub. Jones watched this play out and he’s ready to push his nephew 's head under, if he recovers. He reports the drowning as an accident and inherits money as well. Rachels now proposes a controversial question, “Is there a moral difference between killing and letting someone die?” Rachel argues that they are both equally guilty, and he displays that the difference between killing and letting someone die is mistaken. …show more content…
Since there isn 't any closing difference, active euthanasia is as morally justified as passive euthanasia.
The argument that Rachel proposed fails to be effective and persuasive. Peter Singer reasons that we have an important obligation to secure and promote the “essentials of human well-being.” This is an aggregable statement, because it is our moral obligation to lend a helping hand to save a life. The life of a human being has a lot of value and significance. We should do everything possible to save a life, even if it involves sacrificing our own lives. This might seem debatable, but honorably it is the correct thing to do. Every life is equally important and we should help save as much lives possible. For example, Peter Singer proposes this interesting situation. He says, suppose that on your way to work you see a toddler drowning in a pond. There is no one around to help besides you. If you don’t act to save the child, he will probably drown. However, saving him means ruining your new expensive shoes, dirtying your clothes, and making yourself late for work. Peter Singer asks, “What should you do?” In today’s society many people would not even care to help out this toddler, they would walk right pass this helpless toddler without any hesitation. That is the depressing part, because everyone is way too “busy” with their mundane, regular, dreary routines. Saving a life is not important to many, since they rather engage in other senseless activities and ignore the fact that people are constantly dying and suffering. We live in a society where everyone follows the herd mentality, instead of being a leader. People are way too influenced by their peers and families, they adopt certain behaviors, follow trends, they simply do not think for themselves and most of the time they lack creativity and aesthetic values. Many people engage in routine, daily task, predictable lifestyles and limited vision. This causes unawareness and close mindedness. We become way too complacent, and get into dreary routine habits. As humans,