英文摘要 |
That killing is morally worse than letting die has been used as a reason for the view that passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible while active euthanasia should always be forbidden. Some argue that the distinction between killing and letting die has no moral significance, and so it is not a reason for passive euthanasia and against active euthanasia. There are various ways to defend the moral equivalence of killing and letting die. One of them is to develop contrast cases and derive an equivalence thesis. The formation of such a judgment is not based on any moral theory but rather appeals to our intuition. This paper seeks to defend the equivalence thesis. It uses Donald Davidson’s causal theory of action to find a ground to support the thesis, and responds to objections from a Davidsonian perspective. |