al 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 affluent person to administer the proper service to the one in need. The opposing argument to Singer's premise for comparable moral significance, is the right to property, by Robert Nozick. This argument states that, if one has acquired one's property without the use of unjust means like force or fraud, one may be entitled to enormous wealth while others starve. Nozick rejects the belief that a wealthy person is obligated to give to those in need, but rather, the poor can and may be help through voluntary measures. His rejection goes in so far as the implication that the poor have a right to the aid of the wealthy. Singer believes that such a theory leaves to much to chance to be an acceptable ethical view. For if it is left up those who have, to volunteer aid to those who do not have; there will always be the possibility will continue as they do now and do nothing. This would be done b...
