In the reading, Rachels asks us to consider this case: If letting die were in itself less bad than killing, then someone who said "After all, I didn't do anything except just stand there and watch the child drown. I didn't kill him; I only let him die," should have at least some weight. Rachels says, "But it does not. Such a 'defense' can only be regarded as a grotesque perversion of moral reasoning."

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that the distinction between "letting die" and "killing" is a false and morally irrelevant one. Therefore, the excuse of "I only let them die" is not a valid defense and cannot be considered a valid excuse.

In the Reading, Rachels Asks Us to Consider This Case