Peter Singer's Moral For Children

The average American spends their excess wealth on vacations, fancy dinners, new clothes, and other unnecessary desires, completely disregarding impoverished children in other parts of the world. In an accusatory article published in the New York Times Magazine, utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer condemns the actions of financially secure Americans’ as immoral. By incorporating pathos into his analogies and factual evidence, Singer argues that Americans have the moral responsibility to donate their excess money to help children overseas, ultimately causing the audience to make the choice between a child’s life and personal luxuries.
The argument is introduced by an anecdote from the film, Central Station, where Dora sacrifices $1000 and

He provides factual evidence from Peter Unger that states that just $200 in donations can ensure a child’s survival, which extends his argument by leading to a position in which choosing anything other than using excess money to save a child would characterize one’s actions as immoral. Singer openly weighs the value of the spending of $200 on dinner against saving a child, forcing the readers to agree with his claim because choosing any alternative to saving the child would be wrong. By comparing the value of the $200 used for a child versus dinner at a restaurant, Singer continues to emotionally appeal to his audience by inducing reflection and guilt for not helping overseas children. Additionally, it can be expected that the readers of the New York Times Magazine are those who are considered wealthy enough to donate their restaurant funds to overseas charities, thus directly targeting the emotions of those who have been previously turning their back on the needy children. Supporting his claim with this monetary evidence from Peter Unger, a New York University philosopher, also adds credibility to his belief, since the reader sees that his call to donate is shared by