Murdering an Accident Victim: A New Objection to the Bare-Difference Argument

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (4):767-778 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Many philosophers, psychologists, and medical practitioners believe that killing is no worse than letting die on the basis of James Rachels's Bare-Difference Argument. I show that his argument is unsound. In particular, a premise of the argument is that his examples are as similar as is consistent with one being a case of killing and the other being a case of letting die. However, the subject who lets die has both the ability to kill and the ability to let die while the subject who kills lacks the ability to let die. Modifying the latter example so that the killer has both abilities yields a pair of cases with morally different acts. The hypothesis that killing is worse than letting die is the best explanation of this difference.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2018-01-28
Latest version: 2 (2018-02-14)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Mortal Questions.Nagel, Thomas
Mortal Questions.[author unknown]
Normative Ethics.Kagan, Shelly
Normative Ethics.Kagan, Shelly

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
1,103 ( #2,640 of 50,437 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
244 ( #1,476 of 50,437 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.