After reading The Morality of Euthanasia by James Rachels, respond to the following questions concerning the distinction between active and passive euthanasia located at the end of the chapter. Your response to each question should be 100 words in length.
Would someone in circumstances like Jacks be better off dead? That is, would dying quickly and painlessly be in his best interest?
What are Rachelss objections to the principle of utility? Do you find them convincing?
How does Rachelss second argument differ from the utilitarian argument? Do you agree with Rachels that it is a stronger argument?
Rachels claims that euthanasia cannot be said to violate anyones rights, given that the patient requests it. Do you find this claim plausible? Is it possible to do something that violates someones rights even if he or she consents to it?
Rachels claims that (in some cases) active euthanasia promotes the interests of everyone concerned. If our society were to allow active euthanasia, would this be harmful to anyones interests? Why or why not?