1 / 6

Killing vs. Letting Die

Killing vs. Letting Die. James Rachels’ Arguments Against the Distinction. If withholding lifesaving aid is OK in medical situations why not in other situations, eg. Child drowning? (Reductio Ad Absurdum)

bambi
Download Presentation

Killing vs. Letting Die

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Killing vs. Letting Die

  2. James Rachels’ Arguments Against the Distinction • If withholding lifesaving aid is OK in medical situations why not in other situations, eg. Child drowning? (Reductio Ad Absurdum) • If the intent of removing treatment is to relieve suffering, why not adopt the quickest method (assisted suicide) rather than a slower one (withholding treatment)?

  3. Philippa Foots’s Response • There are actually two different moral principles at work in Rachel’s example which just happen to coincide (benevolence and justice) • These two principles don’t always necessarily coincide • Example of Soldier being left behind • Benevolence might suggest killing him is acceptable, but justice requires heeding his wish not to be killed • So, there can be essential differences between cases of killing and letting die

  4. Rachel’s Response • But what about cases where someone requests to die? • Wouldn’t both justice and benevolence allow heeding their request? • Wouldn’t in some of these cases, the maximization of happiness be best served by killing?

  5. Technological“Means” Matter • Rachel’s argument is that the means to achieving a morally desirable end doesn’t matter morally • One should simply choose the quickest means to achieve the end • A system of assisted suicide should be adopted because it more quickly ends pain than a system that prohibits assisted suicide but allows passive euthanasia • Isn’t this logically equivalent to arguing that since cars and public transit both achieve the same morally desirable end of getting people from a to b, one should choose the car? • Can we really argue like this anymore in the 21st century?

  6. Essay Topics and Due Dates • Should doctor assisted suicide be made legal? (March 20) Eg. Sue Rodrigez Case • Who is the most appropriate authority for making decisions about the use of life sustaining treatment for those incapable of making their own medical decisions? (March 29) Eg. Helga Wanglie Case (p. 214)

More Related