Yes, it is our moral principle to act if a child is drowning, but the question is, will it benefit us. We as human beings should know what is right and what is wrong and if you saw a child drowning in a pond, you should think that it is your duty to do such a thing. One might feel guilty for not doing anything because, for example, they might get their shirt dirty or not know how to swim, but some might disagree and think that it is their physical and mental drive that helps someone drown. So when discussing our morals about duties and charity, oneself would be praised for donating more than someone who didn't charitably condemn to someone in need of help, just like in the example above. Singer argues with Bengal Relief that it is our moral duty to help. He states that it is our duty to provide and give to those who have misfortune on a global and geographical scale and that people who do not condemn in an attempt to alleviate famine are opposed to his principle. The explanation for the division between duty and charity lies in the line between what we do and what it is morally right to do. This is where I think it is