Critics of the thesis that killing and letting die are morally symmetric often attempt to support their position by appealing to our
  responses to particular cases.  Defenders of the thesis, such as Tooley, Rachels, Bennett, Lichtenberg and Glover, have
  argued that asymmetric intuitions arise in such cases only in response to certain morally relevant properties which generally
  apply more to cases of killing than to cases of letting die, but which do not do so in every instance.  I argue that this strategy
  for accommodating asymmetric intuitions fails in the case of one morally relevant property in particular, that of motive.