Rachels, J. (2010). Active and Passive Euthanasia. In S. Brennan & R. J. Stainton (Eds.), Philosophy and Death (pp.

297–302). Broadview Press.

Outline the Bare Difference argument Rachels uses to support his view that killing is not always
worse than letting die. What conclusion does Rachels draw regarding the traditional AMA
distinction between passive and active euthanasia? Provide one objection to Rachels’ view? Does
Rachels have a response to this criticism? If so, provide such a response. If not, offer a second
criticism of his argument.

In Rachels’ Active and Passive Euthanasia, he uses the Bare Different Argument to determine
that killing is not always worse than letting die. The Smith and Jones cases are used to support that there
is no moral intrinsic difference between the two. (Rachels, 2010, p. 299). Case 1 (Smith) kills the child
and Case 2 (Jones) lets the child die. The two cases are identical on the basis of intentions, but morally
different. Rachels uses the Bare Difference Argument to state that the if the cases are identical except for
one feature, in this case the actions, the feature does not make a moral difference. Rachels is criticizing
the AMA policy that doctors are unable to end a life but are able to let a patient die, by assuming the
features of a case determine the moral status, maintaining that moral reasons are universalizable. In his
conclusion, Rachels argument distinguishes the morality of the claims that active euthanasia brings upon
death, while passive euthanasia does not. The withdrawal of treatment is morally assessable, and thus,
falsifies the claims of active euthanasia being worse than passive euthanasia, causing the difference in
status according to the AMA to be indefensible. (Rachels, 2010, p. 297). The act of killing, or lack of
action in letting die are not morally different but letting die seems societally reasonable. It is morally
acceptable to let someone die when they are in need of help because of the societal connotations as a
result of Good Samaritan laws. Rachels Bare Difference Argument isolates the actions of killing and
letting die by providing the same circumstances and intentions in both cases, where killing and letting die
are the only difference. The single difference is problematic as, although there is no intrinsic moral
difference between letting die and killing, the action of killing is blameworthy. In real life cases, the
difference would be more than the action, it would include circumstances and intentions. The morality of
someone’s actions is dependent on the intentions behind them, the reasons an individual has for acting the
way they choose to should be the determining factor of morality. Rachels could continue to defend his
position by saying that killing is usually worse, and recognizes that the intentions determine the moral
status, hence why he isolated the actions in his argument. He could also respond by saying that in active
euthanasia, the doctor is relieving the patient of suffering, rather than letting them die by passive
euthanasia, like in the Second Argument. Letting the child die is morally problematic, as both the parents
and the doctor could have taken action to save the baby, but they are as morally blameworthy as if they
were to kill the child themselves. (Rachels, 2010, p. 299). The act of killing is morally wrong, but the
intent to cease pain and suffering makes it just as moral as letting die.