Explain what you think is the strongest objection to this argument. Next, explain what you think is Rachel's best response to this objection. Finally, give your overall assessment of the effectiveness of the argument.

Authors Avatar

Jessica Hammer

Biomedical Ethics (Phil 23b)

Professor Hirsch        

Midterm

        1. Explain what you think is the strongest objection to this argument. Next, explain what you think is Rachel’s best response to this objection. Finally, give your overall assessment of the effectiveness of the argument        

        In the essay about Active and Passive Euthanasia, James Rachel’s intention is to show that there is not an important moral difference between killing and letting die. His main argument consists on the pair cases of Smith and Jones:

        In the first, Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if something happened to his six year old cousin. One evening while the child is taking his bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like an accident.

        In the second, Jones also stands to gain if anything happen to his six year old cousin. Like Smith, Jones plans to drawn the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the bathroom Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face down in the water. He stands by waiting to see what happened to his cousin, and if it’s necessary, pull the child head. The child drowns all by himself, “accidentally”, as Jones watched and does nothing. (Rachels, 214)

        The two cases differ only in that Smith kills his cousin while Jones “merely” lets his cousin die. If the difference between killing and letting die were morally significant in itself, claims Rachels, Smith’s behavior would be morally worse than Jone’s behavior. However, the two are equally culpable. So, killing is not worse, in itself, than letting die.

Join now!

        Rachels’ argument follows a standard format for arguments about the moral status of certain factors. He presents two pieces of behavior that are wrapped together in the exact same situation, but only differ to the “factor” in question. If the behavior differs morally, the factor is morally significant in itself.  If not, it is morally insignificant.  

        This method for exposing an argument falls on the assumption that, if a factor is morally significant in itself, it will be significant wherever it appears. And we can argue against this assumption, because the difference of the factor. In this case, killing ...

This is a preview of the whole essay