Solution: Moral Permissibility of Euthanasia Arguments

The question asks to identify a premise that is unsuitable for arguing that passive euthanasia is morally acceptable while active euthanasia is not. We need to analyze each option to see if it supports this specific distinction.

Analyzing Euthanasia Premises

• Option 1: Killing is worse than letting die
  This premise directly supports differentiating active euthanasia (killing) from passive euthanasia (letting die). It provides a moral basis for considering active euthanasia impermissible while passive euthanasia might be permissible. Thus, it IS acceptable for the argument.
• Option 2: The ultimate intention of the agent is most important for moral evaluation
  This premise focuses solely on the agent's intention. While intentions differ between active and passive euthanasia, arguing that the *ultimate* intention in both could be the relief of suffering might blur the distinction required. If the primary goal in both cases is seen as alleviating suffering, this premise alone might not be sufficient to deem passive permissible and active impermissible, making it potentially *unacceptable* for this specific conclusion.
• Option 3: "The actual causes of death" is relevant
  This premise allows distinguishing between the underlying disease causing death (passive) and the direct action causing death (active). This relevance provides a basis for moral differentiation, making it an acceptable premise for the argument.
• Option 4: People who can kill constitute a morally worse society than those who let others die
  This premise frames the act of killing as inherently more morally problematic than letting die, supporting a distinction between active and passive euthanasia. It is therefore an acceptable premise for the argument.

Based on the analysis, the premise focusing solely on the paramount importance of ultimate intention (Option 2) is the one least likely to be acceptable for strictly proving passive euthanasia permissible while active euthanasia is not, as the ultimate intention might be argued as similar (e.g., ending suffering) in both scenarios.