Is there a moral distinction between killing and letting die? There would have to be, since otherwise we’d be culpably responsible for the millions of people who die every year because we didn’t feed them. And that’s a burden too heavy to impose on people.
    On the other hand, is there a difference between my passively failing to provide you the means to continue living, and actively depriving you of those means? What we’re doing with respect to people starving to death in the Darfur is the former. What Israel is doing with respect to people starving to death in Gaza is the latter. It’s blocking the aid the rest of us are able and willing to provide.
    What this tells us, I think – and this is backed up by the euthanasia debate as well – is that the living/letting die distinction is the wrong moral cut. What goes in the moral hopper is not just the interest of the moral patient. What goes in in at least equal measure is the moral and material burden on the moral agent. And that applies as much to killing/letting die as it does to saving the life in question.
    That is, putting my dog down, when the time comes, can take even more moral strength than just letting it die, just as it takes more moral strength to save my dog from drowning than it does to let it. So, in short, I’m not sure the killing/letting die distinction is doing the work that’s being called upon, be it here or in the Darfur or in Gaza.

Categories: Critical Thinking, Social and Political Philosophy

Tags: Darfur, euthanasia, Gaza