Homework on Butler, What Broke My Father's Heart, and Rachels, Active and Passive Euthanasia


All answers must be in your own words.

1. a. At the point at which Ms. Butler's mother asks her to get her father's pacemaker turned off, is there anything good about her father's life, for the father? If "yes," what? If "no," why not? (1pt)
b. What about the father's life is bad for the father? In your opinion, is it overall better (for the father) to continue to live rather than die? Why? (1pt)


2. Ms. Butler's father's cardiologist, Dr. Rogan, is against turning the father's pacemaker off.
a. Why (in your own words; no more than one sentence)? (1pt)
b. To what extent would Dr. Rogan and Rachels agree? Explain. (1pt)

3. What point is the Smith/Jones pair of cases being used to make/support? How is it supposed to make or support this point? How persuasive do you find it? (2pts)

4. Rachels claims that passive euthanasia is the intentional termination of human life. Why does he think this? (2pts)

5. On reflection, do you think there a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die? The question is not "Is killing sometimes worse than letting someone die," because sometimes it clearly is. And the question is not "Are there contexts in which one ought not to kill, but it would be permissible to let someone die," because we can definitely think of such cases. Rather, the question is: is there something about killing that makes killing typically more wrong than letting someone die, when all else is equal? Put another way, if we imagine two cases that are exactly the same, except one involves a killing and one involves a letting-die, will the case involving killing typically be more wrong than the one involving a letting die? Why or why not? (The why part of this is the most important part of this question) (2pts)