The Singer Solution to World Poverty

As a utilitarian philosopher, Singer favors policies that provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. In this article, he identifies an opportunity to redistribute the benefits of wealth, and his purpose is simple: to convince readers of their moral obligation to give more money to life-saving charities. Rather than appealing to readers on an emotional level, as is typical of donation requests, Singer tries to win them over primarily through logic.

Singer structures his essay to facilitate readers’ gradual understanding and acceptance of his arguments. By opening with Dora’s story, Singer allows readers to explore the ethics of his argument in a relatively non-threatening way. This is possible because Dora’s situation is fictional and likely somewhat removed from the lived experience of most of Singer’s readers, making it easy for them to judge her situation without strong emotion. By discussing this episode first, Singer secures readers’ agreement with his ethics before they recognize the full implications.

Bob’s situation, on the other hand, may hit closer to home for typical readers of the New York Times. Like Bob, such readers may have highly prized material possessions, as well as concerns for financial security in retirement. The situation itself is still a contrived, hypothetical one (Singer writes that variants of the thought experiment can become “farcical”), allowing readers to evaluate it with some detachment. As Singer’s point becomes increasingly clear, he anticipates that readers will respond with objections and counterclaims, which he attempts to resolve.

Throughout, Singer guides readers with rhetorical strategies that foster a sense of involvement, even collaboration. On multiple occasions, he advances his argument by posing questions, both for effect and (seemingly) to invite response. His tone, while direct, acknowledges and allows readers to form and express views of their own: At one point, he prods readers to equate their potential to give aid with Bob’s situation “unless, that is, there is some morally important difference between the two situations that I have overlooked” (62). Rather than weakening Singer’s argument, these strategies show just how confident he is of his views—so confident that he invites readers to expose any weaknesses in his logic, if they can.

Singer’s engaging tone reaches crescendo with several instances of direct address and calls to action. A few paragraphs after informing the reader that “you, too, have the information you need to save a child’s life,” he suggests that “perhaps you should [donate] before reading further” (62). While such statements lend urgency to Singer’s argument, they may also alienate those who find them too pushy. This, too, suits Singer’s purpose: Among other things, he seems keen to shock readers with the discovery that they are not as morally admirable as they thought.

At the end of the 1990s, when “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” was published, the United States was enjoying a period of economic growth. To Singer, this prosperity carried with it an increasing moral opportunity and burden. It is impossible to measure the impact of Singer’s article, but it remains a thought-provoking read.