Killing is Intrinsically Worse than Letting Die

Surname 1
Student’s name:
Professor’s name:
Course:
Date:
Killing is Intrinsically Worse than Letting Die
Introduction
Common sense automatically prevails in the instance of coming up with clarity about
killing someone being worse than just letting them to die in the long run. We often allow people
in many situations to die, such as when we normally fail to give any contribution of money to the
famine-relief efforts an even if all of us end up feeling somewhat guilty. From such instances, we
often don’t consider ourselves to be murderers at all (James & Bennett, pg. 13). We never feel
like the accessories to have brought about this murder whenever we also fail to even give blood
to the course which needs it disparately, or signing the organ-donor card to help those who might
need it, or even be able to partake in any activities that would end up saving lives. It is apparent
that we don’t kill people and again our duty for us to give them the much needed aid has been
more limited matter of fact. Some philosophers have however argued out that this common sense
happens to be wrong about such a scenario (Tooley, pg. 131). Many have also been able to
defend the specific version which fronts the idea that a killing someone is intrinsically worse
than letting someone die and this happens to be the basis of this paper in broadness.
Moral Comparison between Killing and Letting Die
Such an argument can be backed by the famous Equivalence Thesis as Gennaro (pg. 223)
puts it and he further adds that the thesis happens to be quite radical as a general conception
Surname 2
which would definitely require changes to the ordinary beliefs. If this is indeed true to its word,
then it is very obvious that the duty for us to give this aid happens to be much stronger on this
basis than we have been assuming it to be. It is however better to continue having the belief that
the essence of “passive euthanasia” (which simply involves allowing the terminally conditioned
patients to be able to die on their own rather than prolonging pointlessly their own lives as they
continue to surfer(Oddie, pg. 268)) can sometimes be allowed. It is very wrong to however kill
this patient on the basis that they are suffering thus it seems better to just let them die. James and
Bennett (pg. 16) also manages to argue out the idea that it is better to let a person die than having
to kill that particular person. He even compares the ordinary murder such as someone killing
their own wife since they are just jealousy to the actions partaken by any physician for his
humanely deed where they permit the patients who are suffering to die (pg. 21). In doing so, he
manages to prove the point that the essence of murder happens to be intrinsically worse than that
of letting die.
He continue by saying that there may be no difference between this idea of killing to that
of letting someone to simply die as there happens to be no difference in terms of moral
assessment for the actions that have been committed generally. Again, he says that some other
factors of the same situation which are important may still be put to play to judge the two
scenario. James and Bennett (pg. 23) says that the wife who has been killed by her husband was
very healthy and still in the middle of her life, while this patient subjected to death did not have
any prospects of continuing to live as they would have continued to live in utter pain. On this
basis, he says that the killing of the wife by their husband happens to be worse than the
physicians who let the dilapidated patient to die on their own.
Surname 3
Many philosophers have also depicted that they do believe that this Equivalence Thesis
happens to be true. For some, they have made the argument that appeals towards the parallel
examples by considering two cases which are totally alike according to them. One of the cases
involves the essence of killing and the other case involves the essence of letting die where upon
thorough scrutiny, it seems to be apparent that there is no any moral difference existing between
them. For instance, Tooley (pg. 134) says that a certain woman may want their uncle dead.
Therefore, the gives the uncle some poison placed in coffee. He further adds that another woman
may also want their uncle dead and when they are about to place some poison in the uncle’s
coffee, she realizes that the uncle unknowingly drunk some poison coming from another
different source. She then watches the uncle die while withholding an antidote to the poison.
Tooley (pg. 135) says that there happens to be a bare difference existing between the idea
of killing someone and that of letting someone die on their own thereby propagating the essence
of moral importance between the two scenario. It is apparent that the behavior by the second
woman would indeed suffice to be a little bit better than that of the first one judging by harshness
of the act to ending the person’s life. But when the argument goes on the basis of moral standing,
Gennaro (pg. 225) affirms that there is no significant difference between the idea of killing
someone and that of letting them die on their own. The argument may be appealing towards
reasons parity, as to whether something may indeed be good or it is bad for that matter. This
typically depends upon the reasons which can be credited towards it or being against it for that
matter meaning that the two things have identical reasons and they too are equally bad the same
way they might have been good, or one of them might have appeared to be good than the other.
Having such a stand in mind, one might ask themselves why it has been considered very
bad for them to even kill someone. A reason that is very basic indeed emerges in the sense that
Surname 4
the given victim ends up losing their life in the long run. This means that they shall not be able to
carry out or even partake in anything they might have wanted to be able to do or even be able to
experience some of the things they wanted to be able to experience after all. It is equally bad also
to even let someone to die as James and Bennett (pg. 23) affirms to, saying that the very similar
reasons are considered because the person in question ends up being lifeless or dead and effects
are also the same when the two scenario are compared. However, Gennaro (pg. 226) says that as
much as the two appear to be similar in such a basis of comparison, it is apparent that the idea of
killing someone is worse than that of letting die since the actions which leads to the person
losing their own life are totally different even though both the actions are morally wrong.
Reasons why Killing is worse than Letting Die
The arguments that have been discussed above indeed establish the prima facie as a solid
case for this Equivalence Thesis as many philosophers seems not persuaded by the idea that there
is a difference between the idea of killing someone to that of letting them simply die on their
own. But there are various reasons that can be adhered to so that the point is indeed made about
the essence of killing being worse than just letting someone die on their own. The purported
explanations to such an argument are as follows.
First, Oddie (pg. 271) makes an argument that when someone is killing another person,
they cause their death for that matter whereas if they merely let that person to simply die, it is
apparent that something else shall definitely cause their death in the end meaning that they end
up being less blameworthy for the death of that person. Such a point has typically and often been
made with a general connection to the cases of euthanasia. Within the essence of passive
euthanasia, it is apparent that the usual death cause happens to be the disease that is always
Surname 5
underlying. In the essence of active euthanasia, the causation of death in this case always is the
physician in question. This is the main reason as to why the active euthanasia has been
considered to be the worse of the two. The same argument also holds for these other two cases
about killing and letting die since killing happens to be worse than letting someone die on the
own as it would emerge in the case of physician taking away a life in active euthanasia to that of
a disease taking away the life of someone in passive euthanasia. James and Bennett (pg. 57) even
further makes a comparison to it by saying that a child in the third-world country may die due to
malnutrition and this is not because poisoned food had been sent to that child.
Secondly, there is a duty and an obligation for us not to even try and kill someone that we
completely have to discharge. Matter of fact, almost every person can go for their whole lifetime
without even killing anyone. Tooley (pg. 136) affirms that we however cannot be able to avoid
the essence of letting die in our whole lifetime. He further adds that everyone would spend their
whole time working in a bid to even help the children that are at-risk while still doing whatever
we could be able to manage. It is apparent that the general duty of not letting people to die would
suffice to be very much impossible to even fulfill at its best. From this argument, it seems quite
elaborate as Steinbock (pg. 17) puts it that we cannot avoid letting people die but the idea of
killing these people is much worse than we can imagine.
Thirdly, it is more elaborate that killing someone will leave them for dead and it is just
that. However, if we even tend to fail in saving someone from dying, then it is very clear that we
haven’t ensured their own death, and matter of fact we have left it open with a major possibility
that at least someone might be coming their way to be able to save them. James and Bennett (pg.
63) affirms that this is the reason as to why everyone, in any perilous circumstances might rather
Surname 6
opt to be left alone so that they are not killed. From this point of view, it is more apparent that
the idea of killing someone happens to be much worse than the idea of letting that person die.
Finally, letting die has always proven not to be bad as the idea of having to kill someone
because there is a big difference between the general intentions which accompany these two
actions of a kind. It is most certain that someone who ends up killing typically had an intention
of bringing about death in the long run whereas the person who merely goes to a length of letting
someone to die usually might have had a very different intention for that matter such as that of
ending the suffering that was being faced by say - a patient as Gennaro (pg. 227) affirms to it.
This can also be applied while giving a clarity or an explanation to the difference which can be
seen occurring between the euthanasia kinds prior mentioned in the text above in this essay. The
general intention depicted in the essence of active euthanasia might be regarded as bringing
about death in the long run while within the passive euthanasia bounds, it is apparent that the
general intention might have been ending the suffering of the dying person as Tooley (pg. 137)
ascertains in his text. He however adds that the children within the third world foreign countries
(their deaths being caused by us allow it since we do not contribute towards their relief efforts)
implies that we did not typically have any intention with regards to them as we didn’t give any
thought to them in whatever way possible.
Own Opinion
The above preceding arguments does not manage to appeal towards the general theories
that regards to the societal ethics and instead, it is apparent that they try to attempt in settling the
portrayed issues without even taking sides for the given clash occurring between the view
fronted by the acts of utilitarianism, the theory of contract, and even the theory of virtue in all
Surname 7
sense. Steinbock (pg. 21) says that such an approach, however, might simply come to a clear
conclusion of whether the essence of killing happens to be worse than that of letting someone to
die simply by looking at the theories accepted in the long run. As much as the Thesis of
Equivalence seems to have the natural part about Utilitarianism which implies that killing
together with letting someone die might implicate similar consequences, one should be made to
understand that the victim’s life is taken away in the act of killing while the act of letting die
does not encompass the essence of taking away someone’s life, even though in both case, the
people involved in the situations ends up being dead.
It should also be taken note of to the fact that the virtue theorists, in all the manner of
arguments that they have been able to make, have gone completely against this Equivalence
Thesis, saying that it has shown failure as it tends to give an equivalence to aid violation for not
helping a dying person onto the essence of harming someone in an active manner. By doing so,
the thesis equates the act of killing to the act of letting die in all manner of sorts. This is not true
to all the given circumstances as many philosophers have regarded killing or murder as a sheer
violation to someone’s justice. It is very clear to come into an agreement that killing indeed ends
up violating the rights of the victim matter of fact- their right to life. The act of failing to be
able to grant any aid to the people who are in need only portray a certain level of lack in
beneficence, and Gennaro (pg. 227) affirms to as in his text that this happens to be a very
different matter from that one of taking away someone’s life.
The above arguments are indeed correct with no doubt, since they help to refute this
Equivalence Thesis in all means necessary. It is also true to make a claim that both the virtues
have a big difference in their own stringency or even in terms of their importance. There is no
need to judge the two vices on the basis of morality in order for one to determine if causing
Surname 8
something is worse than merely permitting that thing to happen since there is a bigger distinction
consists between the two vices and one has to ta note that there is a bigger difference between the
idea of causing to that of allowing.
There is a difference between the essence of action to that of inaction (whenever someone
causes or leads to an outcome), and James and Bennett (pg. 81) says that it may lead as to do
something. However, when someone merely allows this thing to happen, they passively tend to
stand by while doing nothing at all. It is apparent that there is distinction existing between the
idea of killing someone and that of intentionally letting that person to die judging by several
other factors that may be regarded to make it seem generally serious and very wrong for that
matter. In this case, it should be noted that the general motive by the person killing someone
happens to be generally evil as it has been reiterated in the previous arguments made about it
than that motive of the person merely letting someone to die on their own.
Someone may let another person die due to their own laziness or even apathy, and this
actions would be considered to be seriously wrong. However, it may not be so much serious as
wrong when compared to the general action of the person that ends up killing another person just
because they want them for dead. Secondly, Tooley (pg. 137) adds that the alternative of letting a
person die on their own than saving their life may truly involve the considerable risk onto
themselves or even a larger expenditure to the society and its resources in general. This can
rarely be compared to the person killing another person. This also brings out the clarity about the
person who performs the action which shall result killing someone else for that matter as it
means that there shall be very little likelihood for this person to survive by all means. This
cannot be compared to the fact of refraining from the act of saving the life of someone, since
there happens to be a very big chance that the person in question may be able to survive.
Surname 9
It happens to be of a greater necessity to clearly state in a firm way the fact that nothing
out there and that no one for any way whatsoever can be able to permit the idea of killing another
person who happens to be innocent as a human being, be it an embryo or even a fetus for that
matter, or be it an adult or an infant, even if it happens to be a person who is old or this person is
suffering from a disease that is incurable. It might also be killing a person that is on the verge of
dying. Again, it is apparent that no one has the permission of asking for to commit the act of
even killing or murder, either to kill himself or kill another person in their care, and therefore
they do not have the permission to give consent of any other person doing it. Killing is regarded
as a crime that is meted against the life of a person or the humanity in nature and therefore,
killing is intrinsically worse than letting a person die.
Conclusion
Conclusively, it may be far from clarity that a common distinction can be accepted in
between the essence of active euthanasia and that of passive euthanasia on the basis of morality
and its general significance. However, this idea has been, by far admittedly been related in many
instances so as to come up with a resounding argument that holds for the fact that killing a
person by intention is intrinsically worse than the act of letting that person die on their own. In
this essay, it has been argued out by the use of some cases that touch upon this idea of killing and
letting die. As per the argument fronted in this essay, to some magnificent detail that is also
elaborate, it has been made apparent that there is a distinction which exists in between the
essence of killing and that of letting someone to die on their own, even though both of them may
prove to be morally wrong in a significant manner. The right to equate the two acts on the basis
of morality using the equivalence thesis does not at all bring about any proof to disregard the fact
that killing someone is by all means an evil act than that of letting that person to die given the
Surname 10
situation at hand such as letting someone die to end their suffering or not helping someone who
is dying of hunger while having the knowhow of their situation.
Surname 11
Works Cited
Gennaro, Rocco J., “The Relevance of Intentions in Morality and Euthanasia,” International
Philosophical Quarterly 36, 1996, pp. 217-227.
James, Rachels & Bennett, Jonathan, The Act Itself. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Oddie, Graham, “Killing and Letting-Die: Bare Differences and Clear Differences,”
Philosophical Studies 88, 1997, pp. 267-287.
Steinbock, Bonnie & Alastair Norcross, eds., Killing and Letting Die. New York: Fordham
University Press, 1994.
Tooley, Michael, “An Irrelevant Consideration: Killing Versus Letting Die,” in Steinbock and
Norcross, eds., Killing and Letting Die. Tooley first advanced the argument from parallel
cases.
Trammell, Richard, “Saving Life and Taking Life,” Journal of Philosophy, 72, 1975, pp. 131-
137.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

-+
550 words

Our customers say

Customer Avatar
Jeff Curtis
USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Customer Avatar
Ian McGregor
UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Customer Avatar
Shannon Williams
Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

  • 5-paragraph Essay
  • Admission Essay
  • Annotated Bibliography
  • Argumentative Essay
  • Article Review
  • Assignment
  • Biography
  • Book/Movie Review
  • Business Plan
  • Case Study
  • Cause and Effect Essay
  • Classification Essay
  • Comparison Essay
  • Coursework
  • Creative Writing
  • Critical Thinking/Review
  • Deductive Essay
  • Definition Essay
  • Essay (Any Type)
  • Exploratory Essay
  • Expository Essay
  • Informal Essay
  • Literature Essay
  • Multiple Choice Question
  • Narrative Essay
  • Personal Essay
  • Persuasive Essay
  • Powerpoint Presentation
  • Reflective Writing
  • Research Essay
  • Response Essay
  • Scholarship Essay
  • Term Paper
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. By using this website you are accepting the use of cookies mentioned in our Privacy Policy.