I do not agree with the difference thesis. James Rachels depicts an account of two men, Smith and Jones, illustrating how Smith kills his nephew for inheritance, and Jones plans to kills his nephew, however, his nephew hits his head and drowns as Jones looks on. Winston Nesbitt states, “...Smith drowned his nephew for motives of personal gain” (103). Smith had the intention of killing his nephew in cold blood, while Jones did have the intention, but due to unfortunate events, he didn’t save his nephew because of the profits involved. Smith committed murder, while Jones did not commit an illegal act because while Jones’ actions were immoral, not saving his nephew’s life when he was in need is not illegal. Another scenario is also given within
