I have the ability to give everything that i own to starving Africans, but have chosen not to. Is this morally different from stealing everything I own from them? In actuality the distinction is not so clear, since it is mostly agreed that third world countries remain poor due to unfair trade, tied aid etc and their povery is a direct consequence of our affluence. But that is not my point. Is it morally different to not do something "good" which is in your power, as opposed to doing something directly "bad"? In either case my choice actions either result in me being rich and them poor, or a more even spread of wealth. I think the distinction between active and passive in this sense is a false one.