weight to important moral beliefs which cannot be subsumed under a single (or a few) general moral principle(s). Rachelss conclusion: the distinction between killing and letting die, and acts and omissions more generally, is not in itself morally relevant. Jones is not prepared to kill his cousin in order to gain the money, but he is prepared to let the child die. . " Cruelty and despair can be suffered not only at the hand of man, but at the hand of nature in circumstances of illness, particularly terminal illness. Replies to Rachels argument:. . Rachels aim is to show that a kind of action great Gatsby: Sight as an Important Sense killing is not morally worse than another kind of action letting die. Bennett asks on what grounds we make the distinctions we do between killing, and doing something which has the consequence of death, without killing.
Physician who humanely permits a suffering patient to die, the murder is much worse. Rather, the idea is that the difference between killing and letting die does not itself make a difference to the moral assessment of the actions.
If I die In A Combat Zone
Why Do So Many People Die In Romeo And Juliet?
Bennetts Attack: the Absence of a Plausible Grounding for the Distinction. The agents power of whether the death occurs; iii. Now, how might wedge arguments, when combined with RU, provide a defense of the active-passive distinction? And so we have more reason to fear Smith-like persons than Jones-like persons. An act is then said to be right if it conforms to a valid rule and wrong if it violates the rule. What explains our sense that my actions are worse in (A) are other morally relevant assumptions we tend to make about the cases.g., malicious motives in the case where I push arnold For Governor the person into the river, fear or perhaps indifference in the case where.