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.

Question

Quizplus · 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.

A Central Premise of Rachels's Argument Against the Conventional Doctrine