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 as well as their conclusions on this subject. I will explain both the author's logical strengths and weaknesses in his arguments. I will give the examples given by both authors of how they prove the truth of their arguments and later I will decide which argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I'm going to give one of Rachel's main strong arguments and one of Sullivan's very weak arguments. I will also show whether the author's two premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons, on which I think it 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 argument about active euthanasia is to say that active euthanasia is not permitted, that it is wrong. He defends the American Medical Association because it says active euthanasia is the death of a human life, by lethal injection, which the AMA does not approve of because they believe it is wrong. Moving forward, the reason he says this is because he says that moral intention is more important than action. Basically, he says that intention is more likely to determine whether an act is right or wrong. For example, as with 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... middle of paper ... An's argument. I showed that intention has nothing to do with how active euthanasia is practiced and I showed that James Rachel has excellent examples explaining 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 from the conclusion itself. I also mentioned one of the main weaknesses of his argument. Moving on to Sullivan, I explained how his reasons make no sense according to James Rachel's. I also showed Sullivan's main weaknesses and one of his strengths compared to Rachel's. I have also given some of Rachel's weaknesses but after all I think I have proven that Rachel's argument is stronger than Thomas Sullivan's for many reasons. Finally, I gave my own ideas and theories on which arguments seem best to me..