... Lichtenberg uses the concentric circles to exemplify the connection between countries to country, but what really supports her idea of distance is relationships. Just because a stranger that lives down the street might be sick, one would not be more concerned than if their cousin who lived in another country is sick. The term distance can be applied to the actual internals of a relationship describing how closely related one is to another. Singer's idea of moral obligation differs from Lichtenberg's idea of moral theory in the way that Singer does not offer a positive side for individuals that give money to the needy. Lichtenberg points out that if X does not do what Singer proposes that there will be no "or else" for their lack of action. Perhaps one of Lichtenberg's most accurate questions is the question of relative well-being, the idea that our well-being is directly related to the well-being of those around us. She recognizes that most individuals desire to be seen as at least as good if not better than the people around us. This is why people hold money and material things so valuable to them. If not human nature, it is common sense not to give away the things that give you a competitive edge. Singer's solution is to give these things away to the needy, when Lichtenberg suggest that we trade the material things in return for things like a good name and respect. No one wants to give there positions away for free, but if they think they are getting something in return, the motivation for "giving" which can also be seen as trading, would mature into something unavoidable, and unforgettable. In whole I believe in Lichtenberg's argument that society needs a moral theory if we want to help the world's poor. I agree that all of her topics play an important that keeps people from becoming motivated to giving. ...
