Killing and Letting Die Essay

cleans calculated article entitled, k milk-sicking and Letting Die is cardinal which provides strains through hypothetical bits, discrediting opinions and beliefs of new(prenominal) modern philosophers. Its main cause is to locate moral differentiation amongst the active taking of life versus allowing death to occur by essence of not producing assistance. Afterwards leg it applies these beliefs onto the sub-topic of spontaneous abortion, highlighting flawed cases of pro-abortion arguments she past counters these with her proclaim strong outlooks.In this critical report I intend to discerp the relevance and application of Foots arguments highlighting both strengths and weaknesses in Foots judgements. Foot opens by expressing that in detail circumstances, for good example our negligence to end third world starvation as inappropriate to the giving of poisoned food to these starving idiosyncratics, our moral agency has a role. This is a sound argument, we have sufficie nt resources to end starvation with little if any detriment to ourselves yet we fail to provide.This failure is just as virtuously wrong as providing poisoned food. This is not to say Foot believes killing and allowing to stop ar the corresponding. It is merely her belief in this particular circumstance that they be not virtuously dissimilar. Proceeding this is a hypothetical proposal of deuce circumstances One, in which 6 individuals are reliant on the intake of a certain rare drug. One individual requires the full quota of this specific medification in order to live, thus the other louvre would not welcome the drug and would consequentially proceed.It is because clear to Foot that the five should fit the drug and regrettably allow this individual to die. The other, where five persons require variety meat and to save their life one patient is killed to obtain these for the five in need. The clear moral distinction between these cardinal is the role compete by moral a gency. We play our part as an agent in the death of a person whereas in the other we canisternot be held liable for the eventual outcome- creation his death.It is our active involvement in the case of the killing for devoid parts which is denounced as morally wrong by Foot, whereas in the case of providing the medicine at a lower quantity to the five patients rather than all the medicine to the one patient we are not an agent in the death as the resources were insufficient to keep the individual alive. consequently Foot concludes a morally justified stance is adopted. This baksheesh is further stopd in Foots Rescue I and Rescue II cases she offers.Rescue I involves a rescue squad hurrying to save five persons from drowning before the receive news of one person threatened by some other happening, they choose to continue to save the five and regretfully allow him to die. This is then contrasted with the hypothetical situation of Rescue 2. Rescue 2, the rescue team are on their elbow room to save the five from drowning when blocking their road is an individual trapped on their route. To continue and save the five the team would have to drive everywhere the individual resulting in certain death.Foot progresses this point by stating, We cannot farm a fatal sequence, although we can allow one to run its course. It is therefore apparent Foot is establishing her stance as against the idea killing and allowing to die are morally divergent. This stance though can be countered with an example proposed by James Rachels which is recognised by Foot. In the first case, a child is intentionally held underwater in the bath until they drown. And in the sulphur an individual sees the child slip and fall underwater, whilst the child drowns they do nothing.Foot accepts that both are morally wrong even so she provides weak and incoherent reasoning for her contradiction. Resorting to an argument involving levels of badness, as if an untoward deed can be rated on a sc ale. It is ludicrous to put forward any act of malicious or evil intent can be inferior to another simply because of the outcome. Also Foot suggests that because the two cases differ in their acts, the result cannot be known to be the same. Foots established beliefs are then applied to the sub-topic of abortion, and if there are any situations it is morally justifiable to abort a fetus.Foot introduces an argument voiced by Thomson in favour of abortion. Thomsons belief is that abortion is always morally justifiable as no human being has the right to use of anothers body, therefore the foetus rights are waived and the mothers rights to remove the foetus as a stoppage take precedence. Foot recites Thomsons flawed example of an dangerously ill individual being hooked to the body of another person without assume in order to survive being similar to that of a enceinte woman.She continues to say if the unconsenting person detaches himself he is not a murderer as the ill person is pro ving an inconvenience to them. Foot breaks down this argument by showing there is an intrinsic difference between instigating a essential and not providing the means to continue life. Foot finds that the language used to break failing to provide the means to survive does not serve purposes of this argument.Foot indicates the word kill is unimportant and it is infact the outcome of death is not instigated by an agent it is otherwise allowed to take place. This is relative to the act of abortion as Foot suggests the foetus is dependant on its mother in the same way children depend on their parents for food and shelter. Thus Foot hints that the previous suggestions by Thomson are horrendously faulty, by denouncing her comment that a mothers rights override a foetus rights as it hinders her life. surely this is saying that if an alive child is proving a encumbrance to its parents lives it is morally justifiable that they terminate its life. Foot correctly highlights that the arguments hinges upon the audiences perception of a foetus moral status. Be it as a human being or otherwise. Foot proclaims that if the foetus should be considered a human being then Thomsons argument is as similar to the killing of the man for spare parts. Concluding that the foetus status remains at the gist of justifying the opposition or support of abortion as an act.