If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa. by James Rachels (1975) Abstract The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis.

The Death of Socrates, by Jacques-Louis David (1787).

In a society dominated by the “right to life” argument, I think that James Rachels takes an interesting standpoint (and one with which I agree). Below is my critique of the essay, and I hope you find it cogent and enjoyable. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is … The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. In chapter 4 of James Rachels and Stuart Rachels book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, the authors examine the philosophical question whether morality depends on religion.

My Thesis: James Rachels’ argument in the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” challenges the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia, stating that there is no important moral difference between the two. Get Your Custom Essay on James Rachels and Psychological Egoism Just from $13,9/Page Get custom paper As introduced earlier, the mere act of helping other people, just like sacrificing one’s enjoyment for the benefit of other people may showcase the principle of psychological egoism.

They noted that in popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable and that people generally accept that morality can be understood only in the framework of religion. Active and Passive Euthanasia James Rachels Abstract The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis.

In this essay, we are going to analyze the main ideas included in “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels to provide a response to the following question: Does James Rachels in “The Morality of Euthanasia” successfully argue that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable The distinction between active euthanasia (AE) and passive (PE) is thought crucial. James Rachels argues against the traditional doctrine in medicine that prohibits the physician from taking any action which would contribute to the death of a patient. Rachels takes the position that in some cases, abiding by this doctrine leads to more suffering. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a webpage version of Rachels’ essay, but I’ll link it here.

The late philosopher James Rachels published one of the most salient pieces on the euthanasia (E) debate in 1975 in The New England Journal of Medicine titled “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” Here is a brief outline of his argument.