1971 | God and Human Attributes |
7 p.334 | p.173 | 20713 | God must be fit for worship, but worship abandons morally autonomy, but there is no God |
Full Idea: Rachels argues 1) If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship, 2) No being could be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent, so 3) There cannot be a being who is God. | |||
From: report of James Rachels (God and Human Attributes [1971], 7 p.334) by Brian Davies - Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion 9 'd morality' | |||
A reaction: Presumably Lionel Messi can be a fitting object of worship without being God. Since the problem is with being worshipful, rather than with being God, should I infer that Messi doesn't exist? |
1975 | No Moral Difference |
p.102 | p.102 | 4053 | If it is desirable that a given patient die, then moral objections to killing them do not apply |
Full Idea: The cause of death (injection or disease) is important from the legal point of view, but not morally. If euthanasia is desirable in a given case then the patient's death is not an evil, so the usual objections to killing do not apply. | |||
From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.102) | |||
A reaction: Seems reasonable, but a very consequentialist view. Is it good that small children should clean public toilets? |
p.97 | p.97 | 4052 | It has become normal to consider passive euthanasia while condemning active euthanasia |
Full Idea: It seems to have become accepted that passive euthanasia (by withholding treatment and allowing a patient to die) may be acceptable, whereas active euthanasia (direct action to kill the patient) is never acceptable. | |||
From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.97) | |||
A reaction: He goes on to attack the distinction. It is hard to distinguish the two cases, as well as being hard to judge them. |