Consider the following two hypothetical scenarios:
Case 1: Bob has cancer, and will die in a a few weeks no matter what. There is unfortunately nothing that can be done at this point to rid him of the disease or to substantially slow its progress. He is, moreover, in significant pain. He prefers not to go on living any longer. So Bob, who is hooked up to various machines that are helping to keep him alive, asks his doctor Anne to remove him from those machines. If she does, Bob will die much more quickly—in just a matter of hours or days, not weeks.
Case 2: Dan also has cancer, and will also die in a number of weeks no matter what. He is also in pain, and he would prefer not to live any longer. But Dan is not attached to any machines that are helping to keep him alive. So Dan asks his doctor Clara to give him a lethal injection. If she does, Dan will die within minutes.
Many people think that, while it would be morally permissible for Anne to disconnect Bob, it would not be morally permissible for Clara to give Dan the lethal injection. But in his article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” Rachels argues that this distinction makes no sense. He claims that, ``active euthanasia is not any worse than passive euthanasia'' (392). So, on his view, if it is morally permissible for Anne to disconnect Bob, then it must also be morally permissible for Clara to give Dan the lethal injection.
What argument does Rachels provide for that conclusion? Is it sound?
In your paper, you are supposed to explain why Rachels thinks that “active euthanasia is not any worse than passive euthanasia.” That is, you are supposed to explain why Rachels thinks that, as long as it is permissible to disconnect Bob, it is also permissible to give an injection to Dan.
Rachels argues that if disconnecting Bob is OK, then injecting Dan must be OK too. Why does Rachels think that if as soon as someone agrees that disconnecting Bob is OK, they must also agree that injecting Dan is OK? This is the question that you need to answer. So the question that you are supposed to address is not: is it OK to inject Dan? The question is: why does Rachels say that, if disconnecting Bob is morally acceptable, injecting Dan must be morally acceptable too?You haven’t addressed that question.
1. Introduction paragraph have a sophisticated thesis reveals an in-depth analysis of the text and give appropriate background information. Innovative, original introduction that indicates writer’s grasp of topic, purpose and audience. clearly lay out the main things will do in the paper.
2. Body paragraph exhibits a sophisticated and coherent structure through skillful placement of ideas and effective transitioning.
Ideas are original, clearly developed and supported with effective, relevant, and specific references in order to analyze the text. 3 citations are correctly used and placed.
Utilizes terminology appropriate to genre, chooses distinct words, and varies sentence length and grammatical structure to create an original and confident voice both fitting to the purpose of the essay and intended audience.
Body paragraph include:
Describe Rachels’s argument for thinking that if it is morally permissible for Anne to disconnect Bob, then it must also be morally permissible for Clara to give Dan the lethal injection? If so, what are your thoughts about this section of the paper?
Please accurately reconstruct Rachels’s argument. Make sure the reconstruction of your argument illuminating, helping the reader to fully understand what the argument is.
Discuss whether Rachels’s argument is sound. what are your thoughts about this part of the paper? Do you agree with what the author is saying in this section?
Make sure your analysis and argument easy to follow, also make it thoughtful/insightful?
3. Conclusion leaving reader satisfied and thinking. Mastery of conventions: no spelling, punctuation or format errors
Repeat thesis statement, and is author argument sound? do you agree and disagree? why?