The argument that killing is worse than letting die has become a paradox for many. There is a common predisposed perception that the term "kill" is coined as bad and bad, leading to the conclusion that killing is worse than letting die. Throughout this essay, I will use the example of James Rachels' "mean cousins" (1975), which shows that there is no clear distinction between active and passive euthanasia when kill. This is also an example of why killing is not worse and can sometimes be better than letting die by Helga Kuhse (1998). Although through further reading and analysis of the arguments showing that killing is no worse than letting die, I have noticed that there are similar ideological traits in these conclusions, including the ideology of utilitarianism. This brings me to John Hardwig's "Duty to Die" (1997), which also gives an example of how we must act in the interest of the common good and not be self-centered and how letting die can also be considered as a utilitarian act. There is also a common misconception that active and passive euthanasia are negative. Active euthanasia is generally considered the most serious act, because it actively aims to cause a person to die, while passive euthanasia involves removing from the patient something that was keeping them alive and, therefore, dying . Because you are not actively acting to cause the patient to die in passive euthanasia, it seems more permissible than actively pursuing it. Rachels shows us that in the “mean cousins” scenario with Smith and Jones, there is no distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Smith and Jones are both cousins ​​to a 6-year-old, and if something happened to their cousin, they would receive a large inheritance. Fi... middle of paper ...... belief, people must act according to utilitarianism so that killing is no worse than letting die. Killing to save a sick patient from a painful death is not only permissible for the patient, but also for those around him who are now freed from the worry, distress and financial problems associated with witnessing the suffering. However, killing your co-pilot or friend after being tortured or stuck in a wreck is allowed because you know you kept them from suffering and gave them a relatively painless and quick death. Even if the patient is in painful pain and does not want to be euthanized, then it is a rational decision but it is not permissible to euthanize him because this result would not be utilitarian knowing that the patient was killed a non-existent death. desired and that those around would feel a certain feeling of guilt for the rest of their lives.