The Singer Solution to World Poverty

A question is rhetorical when it is asked for any reason other than to obtain information. Singer peppers his short article with nearly 20 questions, many of which serve rhetorical purposes.

Some questions invite intellectual analysis of ethical situations. One such wonders whether there is an “ethical distinction ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one” (61). Later similar invitations probe just how far Bob should be willing to go to save the child on the railroad tracks. Such questions urge readers to participate in the process of analysis, rather than merely absorbing Singer’s views. As they do so, they may more fully internalize their discoveries.

Other questions raise counterclaims. For instance, Singer opens one paragraph by asking whether it’s “counterproductive to ask people to do so much? Don't we run the risk that many will shrug their shoulders and say that morality, so conceived, is fine for saints but not for them?” (63). Elsewhere, Singer explicitly frames a question as coming from an imagined reader: “Someone may say: ‘If every citizen living in the affluent nations contributed his or her share I wouldn't have to make such a drastic sacrifice […] So why should I give more than my fair share?’” (63). These questions show just how attentive and responsive Singer is to his readership, effectively enhancing his rhetorical ethos, or character.

A third type of question prompts readers to reflect on their own behavior. These include Singer’s nudge for readers to consider “how [they] should judge [themselves] if [they] don’t” donate (62), his comparison between the value of “one month’s dining out” and “a child’s life” (62), and his probing to find out at what point a reader can be excused from making further donations. These questions bridge the gap between Singer’s ethical discussion and readers’ personal behavior, prompting them to think and act in new ways.

Taken together, Singers’ questions constitute a core component of Singer’s overall rhetorical strategy. Despite the inherent limitations of static text as a rhetorical mode, they foster a sense of engagement and interaction, complementing his use of direct address.

Throughout the essay, Singer draws sharp contrasts between opposing images and ideas. An early example of juxtaposition comes when he describes affluent moviegoers who watch Central Station and then return to homes that are “far more comfortable than [Dora’s] apartment” (61). These viewers’ ability to purchase tickets to watch Dora’s story on the big screen contrasts with Dora’s inability to purchase a TV without participating in human trafficking. Singer uses this contrast to highlight the hypocrisy of those who would judge Dora even as they withhold aid.

Singer also frequently juxtaposes the trappings of wealth, including non-essential purchases, with the vital possibility of saving lives. The opposition between material enjoyment and human welfare appears in both of the scenarios he develops, as well as in his descriptions and argumentation. By repeatedly highlighting the contrast between unnecessary material purchases and potential lives saved, Singer reinforces readers’ perception of the crucial choice between donating and consuming.