Listen
Now moving on to the notes on the paper itself, why did Rachels present examples in which active
euthanasia
actually seemed preferable to passive euthanasia?
a) This was the whole point of his first line of criticism (to show that "allowing a person to die"
is not morally acceptable/preferable in ALL cases)
b) This showed that the currently accepted view (on the difference between active and
passive euthanasia) can appeal to "irrelevant grounds."
c) These examples showed that there is no real difference between killing and letting die.
d) These examples showed that there is a critical difference between killing and letting die.
e) Actually, Rachels does NOT present any such examples.