The extent to which this distinction can rightfully be considered morally significant, has been discussed by Michael Tooley1 and Judith Jarvis Thompson2. In its application to euthanasia the issue has been brought up across the world, numerous times: it is an important distinction whose nature is a point still hotly contested.

The moral significance of the distinction lies at least partially in the nature of morality: what does a difference need to be, or do, or how important must it be, to qualify to be considered of significance morally? The importance of taking others' lives is of immediate and obvious significance to all lives. 'Thou Shalt not kill'3 is indisputably a well-known commandment throughout the western world. Yet to intervene (or not intervene) in other people's death is perhaps a less obvious concern for most lives.

By prima facie intuition killing might seem worse than letting die, in certain cases there is a clear distinction between the two, for example, killing someone deliberately is murder whereas somebody dying in a hospital might be allowed to die, if the patient is considered brain-dead, by switching off a machine that

However, Adam actually did an action, this is something that Barnabas did not do (even if he intended to, and would have done). That is perhaps the crucial difference. That Adam actually killed could be seen as worse than to merely let die. The deontological response might point out that the action of killing is wrong in itself, and should never be done regardless of the consequences. Religious fanatics such as those found in America,4 argue such a case for abortion: that even if the mother is in mortal danger from the pregnancy the mother does not have the right to choose an abortion, because to kill is wrong per se.

1 Michael Tooley Killing and Letting Die (1980)

2 J J Thompson Rights Restitution and Risk (Harvard UP Cambridge MA 1986)

If the effects seem to provide no direction in defending the significance of the moral difference, perhaps the actions themselves should be addressed. Though both murderers held the same intention for the same action, Barnabas chose a non-action, not to save. Adam too must have been faced with the same situation immediately following the poisoning (assuming, realistically that the death was not instantaneous). Even if he had no remedy he was still letting father die if he was not doing all that he could to stop him dying. If killing is not instantaneous, to kill requires an action followed by the in-action, ie not acting to save the person. So, in this way both Adam and Barnabas both chose the same inaction.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Adam Barnabas, Jarvis Thompson2, Barnabas Barnabas, Barnabas Tooley, , letting die, killing letting die, Bible Exodus, Michael Tooley, killing letting, morally significant, Cambridge MA, Letting Die, adam barnabas, causal process, amount life, Spectator Magazine, action barnabas, letting die cause, die cause, cause saved, kill kill, cause father's death, cause saved life, lesser amount life,
Approximate Word count = 1254
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)