After reading “The Morality of Euthanasia” by james Rachels, respond to the following questions
concerning the distinction between active and passive euthanasia located at the end of the chapter.
Your response to each question should be 100 to 300 words in length. Would someone in
circumstances like jack’s be better off dead? That is. would dying quickly and painlessbl be in his
best interest? What are Rachels’s objections to the principle of utility? Do you find them convincing?
How does Rachels’s second argument d’qfer from the utilitarian argument? Do you agree with
Rachels that it is a stronger argument? Rachels claims that euthanasia cannot be said to violate
anyone’s rights, given that the patient requests it. Do you find this claim plausible? Is it possible to
do something that violates someone’s rights even if he or she consents to it? Rachels claims that (in
some cases) active euthanasia promotes the interests of eveiyone concerned. If our society were to
allow active euthanasia, would this be harmful to anyone’s interests? Why or why not?