Which of the following would count as an objection to Nell's argument that famine deaths are a case of killing someone and not a case of allowing someone to die, because had we acted differently or had no causal influence, those deaths would not have occurred?
A) Famine deaths resulting from the actions of many are not clearly cases of killing rather than allowing people to die, because if a single person acted differently or had no causal influence, those deaths still would have occurred.
B) Famine deaths are cases both of killing someone and allowing people to die because both people's causal influences and events outside their control are to blame for those deaths.
C) Famine deaths are not a case of allowing someone to die because governments could have acted differently by distributing resources more effectively to prevent those deaths.
D) Since famine deaths are the result of government inaction rather than action, they are thus cases of allowing people to die rather than killing, but both are equally wrong.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Nell's argument is challenged by the idea that individual actions alone do not directly cause famine deaths, as these deaths would likely occur regardless of a single person's actions, making it more a case of allowing to die than killing.

Which of the Following Would Count as an Objection to Nell's