In Singer's work The Solution to World Poverty, one can draw connections between the scenario of Bob, who did not pull the switch to stop the train from hitting his car and instead killed the child, and donations to oversea charities with the drowning child scenario that was presented to us on the first day of class. An argument that Singer points out that people might use to defend Bob's actions is that, he was the only individual around in his circumstance; however, there are millions of people who have the resources and are capable of donating to these charities. I remember when we were discussing the scenario of the drowning child, someone in the class had brought up a similar point for the arguments of not saving the child. I believe that it was something along the lines that if there were other individuals around, what makes you obligated to save the child, or that any of the other individuals there could have equally stepped up and saved the drowning child. Nevertheless, I think you may run the risk of having too much faith in these other individuals and how might there thinking be any different than your own, that if there are so many of individuals I don't necessarily need to involve myself as someone else probably will. Likewise, we may see that these charities are experiencing decreases in their donations, as people continue to put off that they don't need to be the one to donate if they believe that other people are. Again, I believe that there is a lot of risk in putting trust in other individuals, as there is no certainty that comes with it. I feel like it would be harder for you to be held accountable for your inaction and therefore be morally wrong in the donation scenario, but I do think that it may apply in the drowning child scenario. You are present and witnessing a terrible event occur, but still choose to do nothing and just hope that other will, which I feel would make your actions morally wrong. On the other hand, with the donation of money, I feel as though it is a bit harder to say that your actions might have been morally wrong. Individuals may have arguments as to why they are withholding from donating, such as they are not sure that if they donate this money it will really be used to help people in need, or that they know it will not help people in the long-term so why should they spend their money if it will in fact not make the situation better later down the road, etc..