Question 1

Per the traditional distinction that Rachels identifies, which of the following would be best regarded as an instance of active euthanasia?
A) Removal of a tube necessary for a patient's nutrition or hydration from a patient who cannot eat or drink.
B) Removal of an artificial respiration device from a patient who cannot breathe on his or her own.
C) Refusal to intervene in the case of a terminally ill patient who has suffered a cardiac arrest.
D) Intentionally administering a lethal dose of painkillers.

Accepted Answer

Active euthanasia involves taking specific steps to cause a patient's death, such as administering a lethal dose of medication. Choices A, B, and C describe withholding or withdrawing treatment, which are considered passive euthanasia.

Question 2

Removing an artificial nutrition tube from a patient who is unable to feed him- or herself would not be considered an example of active euthanasia because:
A) The patient may have indicated his or her wishes to refuse artificial life-sustaining measures, making the act an instance of suicide.
B) The removal of the feeding tube does not directly result in the patient's death.
C) A doctor does not intend to cause the patient's death by removing the tube.
D) This action would only be performed for humane reasons.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Removing an artificial nutrition tube from a...

Question 3

Which of the following best captures the central question Rachels is addressing in "Active and Passive Euthanasia"?
A) Is active euthanasia sometimes a morally permissible practice?
B) Is passive euthanasia sometimes a morally permissible practice?
C) Is there a meaningful moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia?
D) Is active euthanasia preferable to passive euthanasia in most terminal cases?

Accepted Answer

Rachels' central question in "Active and Passive Euthanasia" is whether there is a meaningful moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. He argues that there is not a significant moral difference between the two, challenging common perceptions and ethical standards regarding end-of-life care.

Question 4

Which of the following best captures Rachels's main conclusion in "Active and Passive Euthanasia"?
A) Active euthanasia is generally morally preferable to passive euthanasia.
B) Passive euthanasia is generally morally preferable to active euthanasia.
C) Both active and passive euthanasia are never morally permissible.
D) There is no significant moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia.

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that there is no significant moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, challenging the common view that letting die (passive euthanasia) is morally preferable to directly causing death (active euthanasia).

Question 5

Which of the following best captures Rachels's main argument for the main conclusion in "Active and Passive Euthanasia"?
A) There is no inherent moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia because the morality of either action must be assessed in large part by the agent's motives for killing or allowing one to die.
B) There is an important moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia because a person who lets one die technically does nothing to cause another's death, whereas a person who kills directly causes another's death.
C) There is no inherent moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia because all doctors have taken an oath to do no harm and any act of killing or letting die is a violation of this oath.
D) There is an important moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia because active killing measures such as lethal injection will generally be more painless than the mere cessation of treatment.

Accepted Answer

Rachel's main argument in "Active and Passive Euthanasia" is that there is no inherent moral distinction between the two because the morality should be judged based on the motives behind the decision to either actively end a life or allow death to occur by withholding treatment.

Question 6

What, according to Rachels, is most responsible for the widespread belief that killing is inherently morally worse than merely allowing one to die?
A) The belief that death is a great evil that should always be avoided as long as possible.
B) The fact that aside from euthanasia, most cases of killing are more reprehensible than most cases of letting die.
C) The belief that being allowed to die is generally less painful to the subject than being killed.
D) The fact that killing involves an unnatural means of causing an individual's death, whereas allowing one to die does not.

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that the widespread belief that killing is inherently morally worse than merely allowing one to die is primarily due to the observation that, aside from euthanasia, most cases of killing (such as murder) are morally worse than most cases of letting die (such as withholding life-saving treatment under certain conditions). This observation leads to a general, but not universally applicable, moral distinction between the two actions.

Question 7

What, according to Rachels, is the principal reason that active euthanasia might be preferable in certain cases to passive euthanasia?
A) Being allowed to die can be a relatively slow and painful process, whereas someone may be humanely killed quickly and relatively painlessly.
B) Mere cessation of treatment may give the patient and/or his or her family implausible hope of recovery prior to the patient's ultimate death.
C) Passive euthanasia may be much more costly than active euthanasia since the patient may linger for days before his or her death.
D) Doctors are more likely to be confident that all treatment options have been exhausted before agreeing to actively euthanize a patient.

Accepted Answer

Active euthanasia can be preferable because it allows for a quicker and less painful death compared to the potentially slow and painful process of dying that can occur with passive euthanasia.

Question 8

Which of the following does Rachels believe to be illustrated by his imagined drowning case involving Smith and Jones?
A) Letting an individual die can be morally worse than killing him or her.
B) Killing an individual is usually morally worse than letting him or her die.
C) Killing someone is not necessarily morally worse than letting him or her die.
D) There is never a moral difference between killing someone and letting him or her die.

Accepted Answer

Rachels' drowning case is designed to illustrate that killing someone is not necessarily morally worse than letting him or her die, as the moral significance of the act depends on the intentions and circumstances rather than the distinction between killing and letting die.

Question 9

According to Rachels, which of the following is the most common objection to the contention that active euthanasia is not morally any better or worse than passive euthanasia?
A) Active euthanasia is morally worse than passive euthanasia because it causes greater suffering to the patient than passive euthanasia.
B) Passive euthanasia is morally better than active euthanasia because it places less of a burden on friends and family of the patient.
C) Active euthanasia is morally worse than passive euthanasia because it has a potentially corrupting effect on medical professionals.
D) Passive euthanasia is morally better than active euthanasia because in cases of passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing to cause death.

Accepted Answer

The most common objection is that passive euthanasia is seen as morally better because it involves the doctor not actively causing the patient's death, whereas active euthanasia involves the doctor taking direct action to end a life.

Question 10

Which of the following claims does Rachels believe to be illustrated by the cases of doctors who fail to perform simple life-saving operations on infants with Down's syndrome?
A) The conventional doctrine on active and passive euthanasia leads doctors to make life-and-death decisions on irrelevant grounds.
B) The conventional doctrine on active and passive euthanasia offers relevant guidance to doctors on the morality of life-and-death decisions.
C) The conventional doctrine on active and passive euthanasia is correct in forbidding doctors to participate in active euthanasia in such cases.
D) The conventional doctrine on active and passive euthanasia is incorrect in forbidding doctors to participate in active euthanasia in such cases.

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine, which distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia, often leads to decisions about life and death based on irrelevant criteria, such as whether the action is classified as an act or an omission, rather than on the basis of moral principles or the interests of the patient.

Question 11

Which of the following would count as an objection to Rachels's conclusion that a doctor's letting someone die for humane reasons is not relevantly different than a doctor's actively euthanizing a patient for humane reasons?
A) There is an important distinction between killing and letting die because most cases of killing outside of medical contexts are worse than most cases of letting die outside of a medical context.
B) There is an important distinction between active and passive euthanasia because in cases of passive euthanasia, it is the disease or defect that kills the patient, not the doctor.
C) There is an important distinction between active and passive euthanasia because active euthanasia is often quicker and less painful.
D) There is an important distinction between killing and letting die because in cases of letting die, one does not necessarily intend the death of the victim.

Accepted Answer

There is an important distinction between active and passive euthanasia because in cases of passive euthanasia, it is the disease or defect that kills the patient, not the doctor.

Question 12

Which of the following can we infer from Rachels's claim that outside the realm of medicine, most cases of killing are more reprehensible than most cases where one is allowed to die?
A) In most cases of killing outside of medical contexts the killer's intentions are more reprehensible than the intentions of one who simply allows another to die.
B) Unlike cases of killing outside of medical contexts, in most cases of allowing one to die outside of medical contexts, the victim's death is not an intended consequence.
C) Unlike most cases of killing within medical contexts, in most cases of letting someone die within medical contexts, the patient's death is not an intended consequence.
D) In most cases of active euthanasia, the doctor's intentions are not any more or less reprehensible than the intentions of a doctor who allows a patient to die.

Accepted Answer

Rachels's claim suggests that the intentions behind killing outside of medical contexts are generally more reprehensible than those behind allowing someone to die, implying that the intentions in the former are worse.

Question 13

Which of the following is NOT a premise in Rachels's argument against the traditional doctrine regarding active and passive euthanasia?
A) Passive euthanasia often produces more suffering than active euthanasia.
B) Killing is not always morally worse than merely allowing another to die.
C) In passive euthanasia, the patient's condition and not the doctor is the cause of death.
D) The traditional doctrine leads to life-and-death decisions made on irrelevant grounds.

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues against the traditional doctrine by challenging the moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, suggesting that the outcomes and ethical considerations should matter more than the method. Choice C, stating that in passive euthanasia, the patient's condition and not the doctor is the cause of death, does not align with his argument against the traditional doctrine, as it seems to support a distinction he aims to refute.

Question 14

How does Rachels respond to the objection that passive euthanasia is relevantly different than active euthanasia because in cases of passive euthanasia doctors do nothing to cause the death of the patient?
A) Doctors cannot be said to do nothing in cases of passive euthanasia because the act of stopping treatment is itself an action intended to cause the death of the patient.
B) Doctors are not responsible for deaths in cases of active euthanasia because it is the drug that ultimately causes death and not the doctor.
C) In both cases of active and passive euthanasia, the doctor does not intend the death of the patient, although it is an inevitable consequence.
D) Although doctors do play a role in the death of patients by passive euthanasia, they still do not directly harm their patients as in cases of active euthanasia.

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that in passive euthanasia, the act of withholding or withdrawing treatment is an action by the doctor that is intended to lead to the death of the patient, thus challenging the notion that doctors "do nothing" in such cases.

Question 15

Assume that Rachels is correct in claiming that death is not always a greater evil for a patient than his or her continued existence. Which of the following could you infer from this claim?
A) Passive euthanasia may sometimes be preferable to active euthanasia.
B) In some cases, passive euthanasia should not be considered an instance of genuine "mercy killing."
C) Active euthanasia may sometimes be preferable to passive euthanasia.
D) In some cases, active euthanasia should not be considered an instance of genuine "mercy killing."

Accepted Answer

If death is not always a greater evil, then active euthanasia, which hastens death, may sometimes be preferable to passive euthanasia, which allows prolonged suffering.

Question 16

According to the traditional distinction, the removal of artificial life-sustaining methods such as a feeding tube would best be considered an instance of active euthanasia.

Accepted Answer

The removal of artificial life-sustaining methods, such as a feeding tube, is typically considered an instance of passive euthanasia, not active euthanasia. Active euthanasia involves taking specific steps to cause a patient's death, while passive euthanasia involves withholding or withdrawing treatment that would prolong life.

Question 17

Rachels argues that the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia and the conventional doctrine that only the latter is permissible can lead to decisions over life or death being made on irrelevant moral grounds.

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is not morally significant and that accepting passive euthanasia while rejecting active euthanasia can lead to decisions that are not based on relevant moral considerations.

Question 18

According to Rachels, active euthanasia may sometimes be preferable to passive euthanasia, given that simply withholding treatment may cause the patient's death to be a comparatively slower, more painful one.

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that in some cases, active euthanasia can be more humane than passive euthanasia because it can prevent unnecessary suffering by allowing a quicker, less painful death, rather than prolonging the dying process by withholding treatment.

Question 19

A central premise of Rachels's argument against the conventional doctrine endorsed by the American Medical Association is that killing someone is not always morally worse than letting someone die.

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that there are cases where killing someone is not morally worse than letting someone die, challenging the conventional doctrine that typically views active euthanasia as morally unacceptable while passive euthanasia is sometimes permissible. He uses examples like the case of a dying patient to illustrate that the moral significance lies not in the distinction between killing and letting die, but in other factors such as the patient's wishes and the intentions behind the action.

Question 20

According to Rachels, we generally judge that most cases of killing outside of medical contexts are no worse, morally speaking, than most cases in which someone is allowed to die

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die in themselves; what matters morally are other factors, such as the intentions behind the action and the consequences. However, he does not claim that most cases of killing outside of medical contexts are no worse than letting someone die; rather, he challenges the distinction between killing and letting die as morally significant in itself.

Quiz 13: Aristotle's Ethics: Exploring Virtue and Justice

Per the traditional distinction that Rachels identifies, which of the following would be best regarded as an instance of active euthanasia?

Removing an artificial nutrition tube from a patient who is unable to feed him- or herself would not be considered an example of active euthanasia because:

Which of the following best captures the central question Rachels is addressing in "Active and Passive Euthanasia"?

Which of the following best captures Rachels's main conclusion in "Active and Passive Euthanasia"?

Which of the following best captures Rachels's main argument for the main conclusion in "Active and Passive Euthanasia"?

What, according to Rachels, is most responsible for the widespread belief that killing is inherently morally worse than merely allowing one to die?

What, according to Rachels, is the principal reason that active euthanasia might be preferable in certain cases to passive euthanasia?

Which of the following does Rachels believe to be illustrated by his imagined drowning case involving Smith and Jones?

According to Rachels, which of the following is the most common objection to the contention that active euthanasia is not morally any better or worse than passive euthanasia?

Which of the following claims does Rachels believe to be illustrated by the cases of doctors who fail to perform simple life-saving operations on infants with Down's syndrome?

Which of the following would count as an objection to Rachels's conclusion that a doctor's letting someone die for humane reasons is not relevantly different than a doctor's actively euthanizing a patient for humane reasons?

Which of the following can we infer from Rachels's claim that outside the realm of medicine, most cases of killing are more reprehensible than most cases where one is allowed to die?

Which of the following is NOT a premise in Rachels's argument against the traditional doctrine regarding active and passive euthanasia?

How does Rachels respond to the objection that passive euthanasia is relevantly different than active euthanasia because in cases of passive euthanasia doctors do nothing to cause the death of the patient?

Assume that Rachels is correct in claiming that death is not always a greater evil for a patient than his or her continued existence. Which of the following could you infer from this claim?

According to the traditional distinction, the removal of artificial life-sustaining methods such as a feeding tube would best be considered an instance of active euthanasia.

Rachels argues that the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia and the conventional doctrine that only the latter is permissible can lead to decisions over life or death being made on irrelevant moral grounds.

According to Rachels, active euthanasia may sometimes be preferable to passive euthanasia, given that simply withholding treatment may cause the patient's death to be a comparatively slower, more painful one.

A central premise of Rachels's argument against the conventional doctrine endorsed by the American Medical Association is that killing someone is not always morally worse than letting someone die.

According to Rachels, we generally judge that most cases of killing outside of medical contexts are no worse, morally speaking, than most cases in which someone is allowed to die