Question

What explanation does Foot give for why Rachels denies the moral significance of the distinction between killing and letting die?

Answer 1

He denies the moral significance because-

The reason is that irrespective of grounds there are for containing that there's a moral difference between killing and letting die are justification for containing that a appreciably numerous large standard is accurate the rule, especially, that it's inherently increasingly more incorrect purposefully to reason a given mischief than it's far intentionally to permit that damage to occur. Or, to place it as a lot as peripheral introduction properties:

Both the assets of intentionally causing a mischief, and consequently the assets of purposefully permitting a damage to happen, aren't proper growing properties, but the preceding may be a weightier incorrect-manufacturing assets than the latter.

Accordingly, as an instance, a person who holds that it's ethically numerous peripheral to kill any individual than intentionally to permit, say, a vagrant to die of starvation, can likewise maintain that it's ethically numerous peripheral to behave torment upon a person than it's far purposefully to permit that character to bear equal torment, and, comparably, that it's ethically numerous peripheral to obliterate any individual's assets than it's far intentionally to permit that character's property to be crushed.

Thanks