1/26/2014

James Rachels
Active and Passive
Euthanasia
(1975)
James Rachels
(1941 2003)

James Rachels
(1941 2003)

The Pain-Reduction Argument

1. Passive Euthanasia is slow and painful whereas Active
Euthanasia is painless and quick.
2. We should do what reduces pain (as the AMA
recommends in the case of Downs Syndrome babies
with obstructed intestinal tracts).

3. Therefore, we should allow and practice Active

Euthanasia.

Meet little Percy

1/26/2014

Percys Mansion

They die in the crash of their private jet!

Very rich!

Percys parents: multi-millionaires!

Poor Percy!
But wait . . . !

Hello, Master
Percy.
I, your Uncle,
have been
appointed to be
your new
guardian!

Percy is rich!!!!

Oh, oh!

1/26/2014

Scenario 1
Uncle
Smith

Percy taking a bath

I will put little

Percy out of
his misery by
pushing his
head under
the water and
then spend
his millions
on myself!
S

Uncle Smith

Percy is drown by evil Uncle Smith!

Glug, glug,
glug . . . !

CENSORED!

Percy is drown by evil Uncle Smith!

Good bye, Percy!

1/26/2014

Scenario 2
Uncle
Jones

Percy taking a bath

Percy slips on the soap and hits his head . . .

. . . the very
moment I
walk in the
bathroom to
drown him!

Oh, thank
you, God!

Uncle Jones

Uncle Jones

1/26/2014

So I will put
little Percy
out of his
misery by
letting him
drown on his
own and then
spend his
millions on
myself!

Uncle Jones

Percy drowns as evil Uncle Jones watches!

Glug, glug,
glug . . . !

CENSORED!

Percy drowns as evil Uncle Jones watches!

Good bye, Percy!

The Smith & Jones Argument

1. If there were a morally relevant distinction between
killing and letting die, then what Smith did would be
more evil than what Jones did (or failed to do), since
Smith killed little Percy while Jones only let Percy die.
2. But what Jones did (or failed to do) is just as evil as what
Smith did!

3. Therefore, there is no morally relevant distinction

between killing and letting die.

1/26/2014

Rachels Arguments: The Upshot

Thomas Sullivan

Rachels Pain-Reduction Argument shows that we should

use Active Euthanasia if there is nothing immoral in doing
so.

Active and Passive

Euthanasia: An
Impertinent Distinction?

Rachels Smith & Jones Argument shows that there is

nothing immoral about killing per se vis--vis letting
someone die.
Together these arguments form a powerful case on behalf
of Active Euthanasia.

(1977)

Aiming at
versus
Foreseeing
Thomas D. Sullivan
(19?? Present)

Aiming At

Aiming at versus Foreseeing

One may foresee the consequences of
ones action without thereby necessarily
intending to bring about these
consequences.

1/26/2014

Aiming at versus Foreseeing

Foreseeing

Example: If I drive downtown, I foresee that I will wear

down my tires a little; but that is not my intention.

Unintended Tire Wear

Aiming at versus Foreseeing

Aiming at versus Foreseeing

Example: If I drive downtown, I foresee that I will use up
some gas; but that is not my intention.

Example: If I hire Green, I foresee that I will hurt Brown; but

that is not my intention.

Mr. Green: Got the

Job

Mr. Brown: Didnt Get

the Job

Unintended Gas Usage

Unintended Suffering

Aiming at Death

Foreseeing Death

1/26/2014

Aiming at Death
versus Foreseeing Death
One may foresee the consequences of ones action without
thereby necessarily intending to bring about these
consequences.

Ordinary versus
Extraordinary Means

Thus, a physician may foresee that his actions to alleviate

pain will hasten death; but that is not necessarily his
intention.

Ordinary versus Extraordinary Means

Ordinary Means

The distinction goes back to ethicist Paul Ramsey (in his

book The Patient as Person):

Ordinary Means of Preserving life

All medicines, treatments, and operations
which offer a reasonable hope of benefit
for the patient and which can be obtained
and used without excessive expense, pain,
and other inconveniences.

Ordinary versus Extra-ordinary Means

Extraordinary Means

The distinction goes back to ethicist Paul Ramsey (in his

book The Patient as Person):

Extra-ordinary Means of Preserving life

All medicines, treatments, and operations
which cannot be obtained without excessive
expense, pain, or other inconvenience or
which, if used, would not offer a reasonable
hope of benefit.

1/26/2014

Ordinary versus Extra-ordinary Means

The withdrawal of extra-ordinary means need not be
motivated by the intent to bring about the death of the
patient, because there are other possible explanations:

Ordinary versus Extra-ordinary Means

The withdrawal of ordinary means can only be motivated by
the intent to bring about the death of the patient, because
there is no other possible explanation since:

(1) the medicines, treatments, or operations cannot be

obtained without excessive expense, pain, or other
inconvenience

(1) the medicines, treatments, or operations can be

obtained without excessive expense, pain, or other
inconvenience

(2) the medicines, treatments, or operations would not

offer a reasonable hope of benefit

(2) the medicines, treatments, or operations offer a

reasonable hope of benefit

Sullivans Anti-Active Euthanasia

Argument
1. The intentional termination of human life is morally
impermissible, irrespective of whether this goal is
brought about by action or inaction.
2. The refusal to use ordinary means is motivated by the
desire to bring about the death of the patient.
3. Active Euthanasia involves, not only refusal to use
ordinary means, but, in addition, the use of lethal
injection.

4. Therefore, Active Euthanasia is morally impermissible.

James Rachels
More Impertinent
Distinctions and a
Defense of Active
Euthanasia

Critique of Sullivan
on Intention

(1978)

1/26/2014

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

Sullivan is simply wrong

to think that the rightness
or wrongness of an act is
determined by intention!
This is shown by my Jack
and Jill and Dr. White and
Dr. Black arguments!

Meet Jack and Jill

C

Meet Grandma
C

OK. Just fooln. This is Grandma

I just love
Grandma sooooo
much!
All I want to do is
make her happy!
I dont care about
her money!

Very rich!
C

Grandma is rich!

Jack

10

1/26/2014

Then I take Grandma to

the park for a picnic lunch
with her friends! Hey, its
kinda boring, but I do it
for Grandma!

I hate church.
But I take
Grandma
there on
Sundays
because it
means so
much to her!

After that I
take
Grandma to
the movies.
Those
Disney films
are really
lame. But I
do it cause I
love
Grandma!

When the
movies over, I
take Grandma
home, put her to
bed, and read to
her . . .

Of course,
theres other
things Id
But, hey, I
rather do
give them all
with my time:
up because I
just love
Grandma
soooo much!

. . . until she
falls asleep!

11

1/26/2014

Grandma is a
royal drag. She
really gets on
my nerves! I
wish shed die
tomorrow so I
could start
spending all of
her beautiful
money!

I hate church.
But I take
Grandma
there on
Sundays so I
can get her
money when
she dies!

Jill

Then I take Grandma to the

park for a picnic lunch with
her friends! Hey, its kinda
boring, but Ill do anything
for her money!

After that I
take
Grandma to
the movies.
Those
Disney films
are really
lame. But I
do it cause I
want
Grandmas
money!

When the
movies over, I
take Grandma
home, put her to
bed, and read to
her . . .

. . . until she
falls asleep!

12

1/26/2014

Ofhey,
course,
But,
I
other
givetheres
them all
things Id
up because
I
justrather
want do
with my time:
Grandmas
money soooo
much!

Jack and Jill do the exact same things with

Grandma.

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

Thus intention
has nothing to
do with whether
an act is right or
wrong!

Yet they have diametrically opposite

intentions.

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

For Jack and Jill
did the exact
same thing!

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

And the same act
cant be both
right and wrong!

13

1/26/2014

The Jack & Jill Argument

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

1. If intention is what determines whether an action is right

or wrong, then, since Jack and Jill have opposite
intentions with regard to their actions with Grandma
Jacks being honorable and selfless and Jills being
manipulative and selfishthen it must follow that, since
Jack and Jill do the exact same action with Grandma,
that action is both right and wrong.

That intention has nothing

to do with the rightness or
wrongness of an action is
also shown by my Dr.
White and Dr. Black
argument!

2. But one and the same action cannot be both right and
wrongit must be either one or the other.

3. Therefore, intention cannot be what determines whether

an action is right or wrong.

Dr. White

Dr. Black

Dr. White

Dr. White and Dr. Black administer the same

Ctreatment to the neonate: a lethal injection.

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

So, again,
intention has
nothing to do
with whether an
act is right or
wrong!

Dr. Black

Yet they have diametrically opposite

intentions.

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

For Dr. White and

Dr. Black did the
exact same thing!

14

1/26/2014

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

And the same act
cant be both
right and wrong!

The Dr. White & Dr. Black Argument

1. If intention is what determines whether an action is right
or wrong, then, since Dr. White and Dr. Black have
opposite intentions with regard to their actions with the
neonateDr. Whites being to alleviate pain but Dr.
Blacks being to cause deaththen it must follow that,
since Dr. White and Dr. Black perform the exact same
action on the neonategiving it a lethal injection, that
action is both right and wrong.
2. But one and the same action cannot be both right and
wrongit must be either one or the other.

3. Therefore, intention cannot be what determines whether

an action is right or wrong.

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

Thus Sullivan is simply
wrong to think that the
rightness or wrongness of
an act is determined by
intention!

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

Intention does pertain,
however, to moral character.

Dr. White
Thus Jacks intention shows him to have a good character,
while Jills intention shows her character to be bad.

Dr. Black

And Dr. Whites intention shows him to have a good character,

C while Dr. Blacks intention shows his character to be bad.

15

1/26/2014

Critique of Sullivan on Intention

The rightness or
wrongness of an
action are determined
by the reasons for the
action!

Critique of Sullivan on Ordinary versus

Extra-Ordinary Means
The distinction between
ordinary and extraordinary means provides
no help in formulating an
acceptable ethic of death.

Ordinary Means

Critique of Sullivan
on the Ordinary
versus ExtraOrdinary Means
Distinction

Ordinary versus Extraordinary Means

The distinction goes back to ethicist Paul Ramsey (in his
book The Patient as Person):

Ordinary Means of Preserving life

All medicines, treatments, and operations
which offer a reasonable hope of benefit
for the patient and which can be obtained
and used without excessive expense, pain,
and other inconveniences.

Ordinary versus Extra-ordinary Means

The distinction goes back to ethicist Paul Ramsey (in his
book The Patient as Person):

Extra-ordinary Means of Preserving life

All medicines, treatments, and operations
which cannot be obtained without excessive
expense, pain, or other inconvenience or
which, if used, would not offer a reasonable
hope of benefit.

16

1/26/2014

Extraordinary Means

Critique of Sullivan on Ordinary versus

Extra-Ordinary Means
These definitions require
that we must already have
decided the moral
questions of life and death
before we can answer the
question of which
treatments are ordinary
and extra-ordinary!

Ordinary vs. Extra-Ordinary Means Dilemma

1. We either define ordinary and extra-ordinary means
in a common sense way, or we define them as suggested
by Ramsey.
2. If we define ordinary and extra-ordinary means in a
commonsense way, then it is clear that it is sometimes
permissible to omit ordinary treatment.
3. If we define the terms ordinary and extra-ordinary as
suggested by Ramsey, then the distinction becomes
useless in practical decision making.

4. Therefore, in neither case does the distinction between

ordinary and extra-ordinary means provide help in
formulating an acceptable ethic of death.

Sullivans Anti-Active Euthanasia

Argument
1. The intentional termination of human life is morally
impermissible, irrespective of whether this goal is
brought about by action or inaction.
2. The refusal to use ordinary means is motivated by the
desire to bring about the death of the patient.
3. Active Euthanasia involves, not only refusal to use
ordinary means, but, in addition, the use of lethal
injection.

4. Therefore, Active Euthanasia is morally impermissible.

Utilitarian Argument from Mercy

Two Strong
Arguments For Active
Euthanasia

But first a mistaken

argument!

17

1/26/2014

The Utilitarian Argument

from Mercy

Critique of Utilitarian Argument

from Mercy

1. If an action promotes the overall happiness of those

concerned, then the action is morally permissible.

The Principle of Utility

has counterexamples:
the promotion of
happiness and the
avoidance of pain are
not the only two values;
others are, e.g.,
freedom, justice, and
respect for peoples
rights.

2. At least in some cases, active euthanasia promotes the

overall happiness of those concerned.

3. Therefore, in at least some cases, active euthanasia is

morally acceptable.

The Best Interests Argument

from Mercy

Critique of Utilitarian Argument

from Mercy
The Utilitarian Argument
from Mercy needs to be
replaced by the Best
Interests Argument from
Mercy!

1. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone

concerned and violates no ones rights, then the action
is morally acceptable.
2. At least in some cases, active euthanasia promotes the
best interests of everyone concerned and violates no
ones rights.

3. Therefore, in at least some cases, active euthanasia is

morally acceptable.

The Argument from

the Golden Rule

The Argument from the Golden Rule

Here is a second
successful argument!

1. If we would not want a rule that would force us to die of

an affliction so painful that for several days before death
we would be reduced to howling like a dog, with our
family members standing by helplessly, trying to comfort
us, but going through their own psychological hell; then
we should not apply such a rule to others.
2. It is hard to believe that any sane person would choose
such a rule.

3. Therefore, we should not apply such a rule to others.

18