In Sullivan v Rachel on euthanasia I will show that James Rachel's argument is logically stronger than Sullivan's. I will present examples given by both authors regarding their arguments and also their conclusions about them. I will explain both the author's logical strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. I will provide examples given by both authors of how they prove their arguments to be true and then decide which argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I will present one of Rachel's main strong arguments and one of Sullivan's very weak arguments. I will also show whether both of the author's premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons on who I think makes the most sense to present their arguments. In Sullivan's argument he shows that active euthanasia is wrong for many reasons. I will tell you the most important reasons he uses to prove his conclusion. Sullivan's conclusion to his active euthanasia argument is that active euthanasia is not permitted, which is wrong. He defends the American Medical Association because it says that active euthanasia is the killing of a human life, with lethal injection, which the AMA does not approve because in their opinion it is wrong. Going forward, the reason he says this is because he says that moral intention is more important than action, he's basically saying that intention is more likely to determine whether an act is right or wrong. For example, like euthanasia, according to him it is not wrong to let the patient die because your intentions are not bad, your intentions are not to kill the patient. With active euthanasia you are actually doing something according to… half of the paper… the argument of a. I have shown that intention has nothing to do with how active euthanasia is performed and I have shown that James Rachel gives great examples to explain that there is no difference between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Third, I have shown that James Rachel's premises follow from his conclusions and not just the conclusion itself. I also pointed out one of his major weaknesses in his argument. Moving on to Sullivan I explained how his reasons make no sense compared to those of James Rachel. I also showed Sullivan's main weaknesses and one of his strengths compared to Rachel's. I also listed some of Rachel's weaknesses, but after all I think I have shown that Rachel's argument is stronger than Thomas Sullivan's for many reasons. Finally, I have provided my ideas and theories on which topic I think is best.