In this article, I will argue that killing is better than letting die if, in general, the intention is compassion rather than gratification. In other words, it is morally permissible to deliberately take an action that causes the death of another if the motivation is compassion rather than gratification, and this is significantly better than deliberately failing to take steps that are available and would have saved the life of another. – simply allowing someone to die. (definitions – cite NESBITT) ................Determining the moral difference between killing and letting die has been an ongoing debate among many philosophers, with the basis of arguments cemented through the explanation of theoretical cases. However, as Winston Nesbitt states, the ethical theory one holds determines one's personal position on the issue, and therefore, although to some extent individual morality is based and developed on common social foundations, it is not always clear what is morally correct in that context. Total. (NESBITT). This is evident in the example of John Lad's case where the comparison is presented between killing someone by pushing them into the river when you know they cannot swim and not saving someone who is drowning in a river even if you are capable of doing so, thus letting them die . (LADD) In ​​this case most would agree that behavior in the first scenario would be significantly morally worse than in the second. Nesbitt, however, believes that this is an imprecise conclusion since it was arrived at only by starting from the assumption that there are differences in motivations, so much so that one is led to associate the murder case with a malicious motive, while perhaps only fear or indifference in the case of failure to save. Typical acts of ki......middle of paper......honest choices and that these must be respected as long as those choices do not cause harm to others. Therefore, choices regarding the manner and time of death should be allowed. For example, a terminally ill person may wish to take their own life because it is a better option than suffering. (ROBERT) Yet it is once again difficult to define suffering as a general term that can apply to everyone since different individuals have different characteristics. perceptions of the extent of suffering where death would be a better option. Take for example an individual who has recently become quadriplegic and requires 24-hour care to survive. They may believe that life is now no longer valuable to them and that death is a better alternative. However, if in this case we are to respect their autonomy and kill them with compassionate intent, it becomes morally questionable that if this is truly correct,.