esire no desire at all to kill anyone. They just enjoy driving their vehicles at high velocities and are indifferent to the potential pedestrians that may cross their path. They are not mindful of the consequences and repercussions of their driving very fast. Singer says, despite their lack of malice, those who kill with cars deserve not only blame but also severe punishment. Therefore, though the motorists are not wishing to kill anyone when they drive at high speeds, when a death does occur because of their actions, they are responsible for that death. In the same respect, when an individual spends lavishly for personal comfort and selfish reasons, even though this individual does not wish to cause a death by not spending money on saving another life; when death occurs this individual is also responsible for killing another person.In arguing the point of an obligation to assist those in need, Singer presents the premise of comparable moral significance. Within this premise it states, that if it is in the power of a person to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, the person ought to do it. The example given by Singer is, a child falling in the pond. Within this example Singer is on his way to give a lecture and observes a child who has fallen in a pond and is in danger of drowning. The question is then posed whether anyone would deny that he ought to wade in and pull the child out? Granted, this will mean getting his clothes muddy, and either canceling his lecture or delaying it until he finds something dry to change into; but compared to the avoidable death of a child, these reasons become insignificant. Thus, he claims that less the comparable moral significance of an individual is compromised, one must be obliged to extend the necessary aid if it is within his means. In the case of the affluent individual and poverty-stricken person, it is the duty of the...
