A key premise of Rachels's argument against the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia is that a patient's death must always be considered a greater evil than the patient's continued existence.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia based on the effects or outcomes of actions, not on the premise that death is always a greater evil than continued existence. He challenges the traditional distinction by suggesting that in some cases, allowing a patient to die (passive euthanasia) can be morally equivalent to directly causing the death (active euthanasia), especially if the intention and outcome are to relieve unbearable suffering.

A Key Premise of Rachels's Argument Against the Traditional Distinction