If I borrow a generator from a neighbor, then I am morally obligated to return it when my immediate need for it is over. But suppose, instead, I borrow a car, and when I go to return it, the neighbor from whom I borrowed it is very drunk and wants to drive the car; then the obligation to return the car immediately is much less clear. So not all cases of borrowing are equivalent. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument? ['There is an obligation to refrain from acting in a manner that could result in harm to people, and this obligation overrides lesser obligations when they conflict with it.', 'Though some cases may seem to be exceptions, the rule that one ought to return to others what one borrowed from them is an exceptionless rule.', 'When someone that we know is likely to injure someone else, it is not altogether clear whether we have an obligation to intervene.', 'Although having borrowed something gives rise, in an ordinary case, to an obligation to return the item promptly, it does not so obviously give rise to such an obligation in every case.']