Many philosophers, psychologists, and medical practitioners believe that killing is no worse than letting die on the basis of Rachels' Bare-Difference Argument. I show that Rachels' argument is unsound. In particular, a premise of the argument is that Rachels' examples are as similar as is consistent with one being a case of killing and the other being a case of letting die. However, the subject that lets die has both the ability to kill and the ability to let die while the subject that kills

more »

... cks the ability to let die. Modifying the latter example so that the killer has both abilities yields a pair of cases with morally different acts. The hypothesis that killing is worse than letting die is the best explanation of this difference.