• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Is there an ethical difference between actively killing someone and letting someone die?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Moral Dilemmas This moral dilemma poses the question as to whether there is an ethical difference between actively killing someone and letting someone die. Is it morally wrong to kill someone but acceptable to let someone die? An active action is the process by which someone deliberately and uncontrovertibly does something, fully knowing and intending what the consequences will be. A passive action is the process by which someone deliberately does not act, even after knowing what the consequences will be. In the former case, the developer is going to indisputably kill six protestors, in order to prevent any opposition (an active action as this developer is going to actually kill them). ...read more.


?Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep alive?, Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861). But some people think this distinction is nonsense, since killing someone is a deliberate act, and so is deciding not to save someone. In active killing, a person is required to take an action with the intention that it will cause the death. In passive killing, a person lets someone die. However, this person is required to carry out an action (to not act) with the intention that it will cause death. So there is no real difference between passive and active killing, since both have the same result: the death of a person. ...read more.


One evening Jones sneaks into the bathroom where the child is having his bath. As he enters the bathroom he sees the boy fall over, hit his head on the side of the bath and slide face-down under the water. Jones is delighted; he doesn't rescue the child but stands by the bath, and watches as the child drowns. This doctrine is currently the position of the law. There is no obligation to save someone but you are classed a murderer if you actively kill someone. However, most people would say that this difference between their moral guilt is nil. In my opinion, although there might be a moral difference between these cases, there is not an ethical reason to distinguish the two. Therefore, you would only be justified in stopping both of these building works, or allowing them both to go ahead. 09/03/2011 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Ethics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Ethics essays

  1. Compare and contrast Plato and Aristotle on the acquisition of ethical understanding.

    Therefore without access to the Good, there could be no acquisition of ethics, as ethics is central to the agent and the agent having a property in them that can only be achieved through access to the forms. Someone can only be just and do just things if they have

  2. Explain what Scholars means when they say ethical statements are no more than expressions ...

    How far do you consider these views to be justified? Emotivists would justify these views as it allows everyone's opinions to be equally valid and taken into account, which promotes freedom of action amongst them. Furthermore these views have forced philosophers to consider and study the meaning of ethical statements in a deeper manner.

  1. life after death

    Jesus taught that whoever did not abide by the rules of god would not enter heaven. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies". Jesus said that the person, who believes in him, will go to heaven (live), even though he is physically dead.

  2. How Successful is The Co-operative Banks Ethical policy?

    The firm could use this as a unique selling point for the product/service. 7. Ultimately it will improve the bottom line of business, which is to make a profit. It will do this using all the advantages described. The Co-Operative bank is a part of the Co-Op group which is

  1. "Medical research in the U.K. is being suffocated by excessive governance and ethical review".

    Various legislative reforms continue to occur including the 2004 clinical trial regulations.17 The "Warner Report" In view of these continuing changes in policy and burdensome nature of research ethics committees, Lord Warner, in late 2004 a junior health minister arranged for an independent ad hoc advisory review of all NHS

  2. What in your opinion is the difference between doing the best thing and doing ...

    It seems therefore as if doing the right thing must involve a good intention, and a sense of duty. Another example, which is less obvious, is that if you are a person who loves meat, but does not eat it because you believe it is wrong to kill animals, you

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work