not contribute enough resources that are needed by poverty-stricken countries, the citizens of these wealthy countries are allowing those in poor countries to suffer from absolute poverty. He argues that every absolutely affluent (wealthy beyond necessity of human survival) individual is responsible. For each individual who lives affluently has an opportunity to do something about absolute poverty. Singer suggest that allowing someone to die is not intrinsically different from killing someone. Thus, those who live affluently and do nothing to alleviate the suffering and death of those in absolute poverty, in essence have, murdered them. An opposing argument is presented by stating, there are two distinct motivations in deliberately killing a person and spending money lavishly on luxuries instead of using it to save lives. On the one side, in killing someone deliberately, one must have a motivation and desire to see the person dead; they perhaps may go to great extremes to meet their end result. Their motivation to kill is one of enmity and malevolence. On the other side, an individual who spends money on luxurious items desires to possess luxurious things in life. Though the money was spent for the individuals own comfort and not for the saving of another life, it is nonetheless not a unthinkable act. Singer suggest that this individuals motivation could be defined at worst, as, an individual who is selfish or indifferent to the plight of others and seeks personal comfort and well-being. This person does not want to purposefully do harm to another or see them dead. There is no comparable characteristic between two such individuals that would make their acts intrinsically similar. Singer presents this argument as one of a few examples given, that are held as commonsensical beliefs.Singer responds to this particular commonsensical belief by presenting the example of a speeding motorist. He states that a speeding motorists usually has no d...
