Euthanasia Argumentative Analysis
The euthanasia debate heavily relies on the existence of a significant moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, also known as the killing versus letting die argument. Some may argue that killing is morally wrong because it "involves a person's causing the death of another person," while letting someone die would simply be seen as "allowing nature do its work" (Vaughn, 2013, p. 287). Due to the differing views on the legitimacy of the euthanasia debate, the presence of a gray area exists on the consequences and implications brought forth by both sides of the argument. In James Rachels' article, "Active and Passive Euthanasia" Rachels (1975) aims to argue that there is no moral difference in terms of the killing versus letting die argument. He argues, that should a significant moral difference exist between the
…show more content…
295). He also argues that Rachels overlooks what the person is prepared to do, and only focuses on what action he takes, and claims that this is faulty because "both are judged reprehensible for precisely the same reason, namely that they were fully prepared to kill for motives of personal gain" (295). Stating that both men in Rachels' scenario are guilty of the same moral offense, he claims that in order to modify the scenario to accurately represent the argument in favor of a moral difference, one must not be fully prepared to kill the cousin, while the other is not. In a society where there is in fact a moral difference between killing and letting die, one would prefer more people who are not prepared to kill, and as Nesbitt states, "[Jones] might save me as long as he doesn't think he will profit from my death" (p.
295). He also argues that Rachels overlooks what the person is prepared to do, and only focuses on what action he takes, and claims that this is faulty because "both are judged reprehensible for precisely the same reason, namely that they were fully prepared to kill for motives of personal gain" (295). Stating that both men in Rachels' scenario are guilty of the same moral offense, he claims that in order to modify the scenario to accurately represent the argument in favor of a moral difference, one must not be fully prepared to kill the cousin, while the other is not. In a society where there is in fact a moral difference between killing and letting die, one would prefer more people who are not prepared to kill, and as Nesbitt states, "[Jones] might save me as long as he doesn't think he will profit from my death" (p.