Active Euthanasia Argument Analysis

I will begin this essay by summarizing and explaining an argument that insists killing is worse than letting someone die, in correlation with active euthanasia being morally worse than passive euthanasia, an idea I disagree with. Then, I will explain James Rachels, an American philosopher, objection to the first argument, which tells that killing is no worse than letting die. Rachels argument goes against the idea that active euthanasia is morally worse than passive. In the end, I will discuss how Rachels objection succeeds.
When presented with the question “What would be worse, to kill someone or to let someone die?” the popular answer would be that killing someone is worse. If you lethally stab someone it is worse than watching someone else …show more content…
He begins the argument by explaining how active euthanasia can be better in some cases rather than passive euthanasia. Consider a case of throat cancer that cannot be cured, the patient endures constant suffering and only has less than a month to live (Rachels 1). If passive euthanasia is used, the patients will continue to be in pain and it could get considerably worse over the time of which they are getting closer to death. Instead of prolonging the suffering and going against humanitarian reasoning, active euthanasia the patients can be used to give them peace whenever they wish in a matter of minutes. There are plenty of instances that would fit this same idea where active euthanasia could be of better use to the patient than passive …show more content…
To explain this, he starts with a thought experiment that compares two cases. In both cases, there is an older cousin who is next in line to inherit a large number of valuables if anything would happen to their younger cousin. They both plan to drown the younger cousin to gain for themselves. The first cousin, who we will call Smith, sneaks into the bathroom while the younger cousin is bathing, drowns them and makes it look like it was an accident. The other cousin, who we will call Jones, sneaks into the bathroom while he is bathing, watches him slip fall and fall face first into the water. Jones stands by ready to put him back underwater if anything happens but does not have to (Rachels 3). Is there any morally relevant difference between what Smith and Jones did? Rachels says there is no difference, killing is no worse than letting die. They both had the same intentions but only one of them was lucky enough that he did not have to act on them. If killing is morally worse than letting die, it would be true that a defense of Jones, that he only watched and did not kill the child, would be of some value. This defense should hold no value because what they did was equally wrong from a moral