Smith And Jones Case Summary
In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. Furthermore, I will give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. Additionally, I will show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will do so by refining my propositions and reaction of this case, of the dispute of active and passive euthanasia. By defending Rachel’s case I will discuss why I sided with Rachel on his moral reasoning’s.
Rachel’s thesis to my understanding is that active euthanasia is not any harsher than passive euthanasia. Rachel justifies this in two different circumstances, which he positions that they are intently similar to the exemption that the first occasion of killing someone, and the second is a situation of letting someone die. I deem that Rachel’s adjudication is accurate when he says that there is no morally significant difference between actively killing and letting someone die. He gives the example of the Smith and Jones case, with the only …show more content…
I argue this point of view due to the fact that in Rachel’s case, they both acted out of the same ambitions, individual profits, and both acted to achieve the same conclusion. If both of them did not have a large inheritance to gain out of the death of the other cousin, then their moral perspectives would be completely different. The first case if the personal gain is removed, and Smith did intentionally drown Jones, would be a case that would lead to a murder charge. Additionally, in the second case, the only reason Jones was planning to drown his cousin Smith was for the large inheritance. Once we remove this from the situation, Jones simply walks in on Smith drowning and allows him to drown, then his moral and ethical values are what we would question on why or why not did he not try to save
Rachel’s thesis to my understanding is that active euthanasia is not any harsher than passive euthanasia. Rachel justifies this in two different circumstances, which he positions that they are intently similar to the exemption that the first occasion of killing someone, and the second is a situation of letting someone die. I deem that Rachel’s adjudication is accurate when he says that there is no morally significant difference between actively killing and letting someone die. He gives the example of the Smith and Jones case, with the only …show more content…
I argue this point of view due to the fact that in Rachel’s case, they both acted out of the same ambitions, individual profits, and both acted to achieve the same conclusion. If both of them did not have a large inheritance to gain out of the death of the other cousin, then their moral perspectives would be completely different. The first case if the personal gain is removed, and Smith did intentionally drown Jones, would be a case that would lead to a murder charge. Additionally, in the second case, the only reason Jones was planning to drown his cousin Smith was for the large inheritance. Once we remove this from the situation, Jones simply walks in on Smith drowning and allows him to drown, then his moral and ethical values are what we would question on why or why not did he not try to save