Elements Of Moral Philosophy By James Rachels

Is the act of killing a person, worse than letting him or her die? American moral philosopher and author of The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels’, answers this question, as well as the alleged moral distinction between killing and letting. Rachels’ begins by illustrating the various factors of particular actions and disputes the application of morality in certain situations. By using his Equivalence Thesis and its justification, the Bare Difference argument, Rachels’ argues that the action of killing and letting die are viewed equally, as there is no moral difference between them.
For those who have not ventured to read his book, Rachels’ Equivalence Thesis states that killing a person and letting them die, is virtually one in the same. In other words, if the action of killing someone is permissible than …show more content…
The Smith and Jones Bare Difference Case, addresses Smith, who knows that he will acquire an inheritance if his little cousin dies. Smith then sneaks into his cousin’s house, where the cousin is taking a bath and drowns him. The other scenario Rachels’ describes: Jones is aware that if his cousin dies, he will inherit the large sum of money. During the night, Jones sneaks into his cousin’s house with intentions to drown him. However, upon reaching the bathroom, Jones notices his cousin has slipped into the bath and is now unconscious on the floor. Jones has the option to remove his cousin from the water to save him, but chooses to let his cousin die instead. Both examples illustrate Rachels’ Equivalence Thesis, that Smith and Jones act or intention to kill, is the same as letting die. Furthermore, he argues that drowning the cousin or letting him die acts on a motive of personal gain for the individual. As a result, both cases show the same intention of entering the bathroom with paralleled outcomes; therefore, Rachels’ uses this evidence to validate his