Grand Rapids Community College Bioethics
PREDICTOR EXAM QUESTIONS AND WITH REAL WELL
ELABORATED ANSWERS AND RATIONALES 100%
CORRECT VERIFIED SOLUTIONS GUARANTEED PASS
A+||BRAND NEW!! 2026-2027
What is the purpose of the nephew-drowning example? (5pts)
The purpose of the nephew-drowning example is to elaborate that
simply "doing nothing" is the same as actively killing someone. The
motive and intent is the same, and it should morally be treated as such.
He also wants to confront the fact that "not doing anything" has a more
positive connotation to it and we are, unjustifiably, more sympathetic to
situations where "nothing" is done, than situations where killing is
actively done (as, Rachels points out, is what the AMA is doing in his
previous quotation from them).
Rachel's discusses the idea that, in cases where a cancer patient is
allowed to die (passive euthanasia), "the cancer is the cause of death"
not the doctor. What is Rachel's view of this claim? As part of your
answer, explain his reference to the way we may insult people. (15pts)
Rachels views "letting someone die" as morally indifferent (and
sometimes, even worse) than ending their suffering directly. Rachels
views the act of doing nothing at all as, in itself, an action still. Death is
still being brought about by choosing not to do other actions and
should be considered as such. Rachels references this with the simple
act of handshaking. If someone were to not give someone a handshake,
it is insulting still. Someone may let the patient die by not giving them
medications, just as someone may insult someone else by not shaking
their hand.
,Do Rachels and Gay-Williams agree on the moral importance of the
killing/letting die distinction? Do the authors agree on the morality of
euthanasia? Explain why or why not.(10pts)
Absolutely not. They have opposite opinions. Gay-Williams is in
agreement with what Rachels disagrees with. Gay-Williams believes that
passive euthanasia is not euthanasia at all because a person is not
actively bringing about death, but the illness is killing the person.
Rachels, however, believes that withholding treatment and providing
the means to end life have the same consequences, and are inherently
the same. They most certainly do not agree on the morality of both
situations. Gay-Williams believes that passive and active euthanasia
hold opposite weights, whilst Rachels believes that they should be
regarded with the same moral weight.
What is your opinion of Rachel's argument? Explain. (5pts)
I like that he critiques the American Medical Association on the wording
of their article. I do agree with that. The wording is vague and seems to
be dodging the actual issue, and Rachels attacks it well. His examples
are more emotionally provoking than other articles and it helps one see
the real-world application of these ideas (providing a surgeon's
account of the issue). I also agree that passive and active euthanasia
should have the same moral weight, generally speaking.
, John Noonan, asks the question "How do you determine the humanity
of a being?" Why is he asking the question? What is his answer? (10 pts)
Noonan asks this question to establish the baseline as to why he is
against abortion. This question, and his answer, provide his entire
argument for his viewpoint on the subject. Noonan answers with
defining humanity on the basis of having human parents, having a
genetic code, and having potential. Conception meets all of these
requirements, and in doing so, proves that abortion is morally wrong (to
Noonan). This is morally wrong because humanity has been established.
He also uses these criterion to establish that other types of criteria are
false (viability, social perception)
Noonan notes that "[t]here are about 200,000,000 [spermatozoa] in any
single ejaculate". What is his purpose in citing this number? Explain his
argument. (10 pts)
Noonan states this to support his argument that conception is where
the beginning of personhood is established. The odds of a single
sperm fertilizing an oocyte to make a particular combination of a
person is astronomically small. After conception is achieved, the
probabilities of a successful pregnancy rise and become more realistic.
All of Noonan's humanity requirements are fulfilled, and thus abortion is
considered wrong (except in special cases). The fetus now has a right to
life.
PREDICTOR EXAM QUESTIONS AND WITH REAL WELL
ELABORATED ANSWERS AND RATIONALES 100%
CORRECT VERIFIED SOLUTIONS GUARANTEED PASS
A+||BRAND NEW!! 2026-2027
What is the purpose of the nephew-drowning example? (5pts)
The purpose of the nephew-drowning example is to elaborate that
simply "doing nothing" is the same as actively killing someone. The
motive and intent is the same, and it should morally be treated as such.
He also wants to confront the fact that "not doing anything" has a more
positive connotation to it and we are, unjustifiably, more sympathetic to
situations where "nothing" is done, than situations where killing is
actively done (as, Rachels points out, is what the AMA is doing in his
previous quotation from them).
Rachel's discusses the idea that, in cases where a cancer patient is
allowed to die (passive euthanasia), "the cancer is the cause of death"
not the doctor. What is Rachel's view of this claim? As part of your
answer, explain his reference to the way we may insult people. (15pts)
Rachels views "letting someone die" as morally indifferent (and
sometimes, even worse) than ending their suffering directly. Rachels
views the act of doing nothing at all as, in itself, an action still. Death is
still being brought about by choosing not to do other actions and
should be considered as such. Rachels references this with the simple
act of handshaking. If someone were to not give someone a handshake,
it is insulting still. Someone may let the patient die by not giving them
medications, just as someone may insult someone else by not shaking
their hand.
,Do Rachels and Gay-Williams agree on the moral importance of the
killing/letting die distinction? Do the authors agree on the morality of
euthanasia? Explain why or why not.(10pts)
Absolutely not. They have opposite opinions. Gay-Williams is in
agreement with what Rachels disagrees with. Gay-Williams believes that
passive euthanasia is not euthanasia at all because a person is not
actively bringing about death, but the illness is killing the person.
Rachels, however, believes that withholding treatment and providing
the means to end life have the same consequences, and are inherently
the same. They most certainly do not agree on the morality of both
situations. Gay-Williams believes that passive and active euthanasia
hold opposite weights, whilst Rachels believes that they should be
regarded with the same moral weight.
What is your opinion of Rachel's argument? Explain. (5pts)
I like that he critiques the American Medical Association on the wording
of their article. I do agree with that. The wording is vague and seems to
be dodging the actual issue, and Rachels attacks it well. His examples
are more emotionally provoking than other articles and it helps one see
the real-world application of these ideas (providing a surgeon's
account of the issue). I also agree that passive and active euthanasia
should have the same moral weight, generally speaking.
, John Noonan, asks the question "How do you determine the humanity
of a being?" Why is he asking the question? What is his answer? (10 pts)
Noonan asks this question to establish the baseline as to why he is
against abortion. This question, and his answer, provide his entire
argument for his viewpoint on the subject. Noonan answers with
defining humanity on the basis of having human parents, having a
genetic code, and having potential. Conception meets all of these
requirements, and in doing so, proves that abortion is morally wrong (to
Noonan). This is morally wrong because humanity has been established.
He also uses these criterion to establish that other types of criteria are
false (viability, social perception)
Noonan notes that "[t]here are about 200,000,000 [spermatozoa] in any
single ejaculate". What is his purpose in citing this number? Explain his
argument. (10 pts)
Noonan states this to support his argument that conception is where
the beginning of personhood is established. The odds of a single
sperm fertilizing an oocyte to make a particular combination of a
person is astronomically small. After conception is achieved, the
probabilities of a successful pregnancy rise and become more realistic.
All of Noonan's humanity requirements are fulfilled, and thus abortion is
considered wrong (except in special cases). The fetus now has a right to
life.
