Our reading for this week concerns moral dilemmas that people face at the end of

Admin/ July 11, 2022/ Philosophy

Our reading for this week concerns moral dilemmas that people face at the end of their lives: euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, even capital punishment.
In one of the articles in the text book for this week, philosopher James Rachels argues that when a person is near death, and is being kept alive by a respirator or ventilator, in that situation there is no moral difference between shutting the respirator off to let the person die, and giving someone a lethal injection to cause them to die. This means that if one of these is bad, then the other is just as bad. However, if one of these is good, then the other is just as good. They are “morally equivalent.”
His argument is based on a deeper concept, namely that there is no moral difference between killing someone and letting the same person die if all other factors are the same.
Answer the following two questions:
1. Do you believe there IS a difference between killing and letting someone die if all other factors are the same? Secondly, do you believe there IS a moral difference between shutting the respirator off to allow a person to die and giving them a lethal injection to cause them to die? Please explain why you answer as you do. (150 words)
2. Give your response to the three texts below.
Which points do you find interesting or enlightening or refreshing to you? (50-100 words each, you need to write three)
Text 1:
Killing is the same as letting someone die. Regardless of whether this “death” is the will of the person concerned. This is immoral no matter how you look at it, because “death” is irresponsible to oneself and irresponsible to others. According to the Christian point of view, life is a gift from God, and living is a grace from God. Therefore, whether it’s cutting off a ventilator to kill someone or injecting a drug to kill someone is disrespectful behavior and unethical to others. They are indistinguishable because I think in the end it is the death of the other person, so even if the method is different, it is still the act of the death of the other person.
TEXT 2:
Both killing and letting someone die are inherently fatal, but when it comes to the person performing the act, there is a difference even if all other factors are equal. Since the expression “let others die” exists in everyone’s life, as long as the life is not saved, let it die. Yet killing requires executing the action. Second, considering that it is immoral to end the suffering of a dying person, is it also immoral for a doctor to inflict some pain and then heal with every treatment? Shutting the respirator off and giving them a lethal injection is turning long-term pain into short-term pain, and maybe death brings rebirth. It is not about ethical.
TEXT 3:
If all other factors are equal, I believe that killing someone is equivalent to letting someone die. Both options involve allowing others to die and lose their lives. However, if we carefully examine the two approaches, I believe killing is more likely to be motivated by hatred or intentional killing. Moreover, letting people die is a difficult decision usually made in unusual circumstances. The inner feelings of the two methods of killing will be very different. There is no moral distinction between turning off a respirator and allowing someone to die and administering a lethal injection to end their life. In my opinion, both approaches violate morality and the right to life. No one has the power to control the lives of others, nor the right to end the lives of others. Regardless of the circumstances, turning off ventilators and injections deprives others of their right to life.

Share this Post