Rhetorical Analysis Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty

“The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” published in the New York Times Magazine is an essay that focuses on convincing the reader to donate their extra income to charities. Singer's solution suggests that every American should stop using their money to buy luxuries but rather donate that money to charities, including UNICEF and over sea aid organizations. The opening of the piece starts with a hypothetical scenario, where Dora is put into a situation where she can choose between gaining extra cash verses saving a child’s life. The essay continues to another scenario where Bob, who is also put into a critical decision making choice, has to choose between saving his valuable car and saving a child’s life. Singer then ties together these scenarios and how

they are one in the same with the common individual who are not donating. He then provides his solution, by providing statistical facts, phone numbers to certain charities, and showing the reader how easy this issue can be solved.
Singer talks about the contradictions that allow individuals to ignore suffering individuals across the world. Through his hypothetical sceneries, providing statistics, and comparisons of middle class luxuries to human necessities, he appeals to the guilt of his readers, convincing them that obtaining luxuries is not as important as the world’s poor.
Singer quickly starts using pathos by opening his essay with a hypothetical example comparing life, death, and donations. In the essay, Dora, a poor schoolteacher from Brazil, stands to gain $1000 if she delivers a boy to a particular address. Dora does just that, but once she learns that her benefactors want to sell the boy’s organs, she tries to save him. Singer does this to allow the reader to become familiar with Dora situation and analyze her decisions made and form an opinion towards her. Singer also provides another anecdote, involving these same aspects. Bob, a middle-aged American, could save the life of a child from a runaway train by throwing a nearby switch. Instead, he sacrifices the child because if he threw the switch, the train would hit his expensive vintage car. With both of these situations presented, they evoke emotions from the reader. They are left thinking that both of these characters are heartless. But with that, Singer explains the relevance between these scenarios and how they connect to our lives, questioning if we, the readers, are heartless. “Bob’s conduct, most of us will immediately respond, was gravely wrong. Unger agrees. But then he reminds us that we, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children” (380).
Singer’s next strategy involves statistical facts to implement towards the guilt of a reader. You would think that it may be weird to add stats to an emotional paper, but the way that Singer uses this technique revolves around the idea of guilt to the reader. The first statistic Singer throws at readers is the $200 that can save a child’s life if it is donated to a charitable organization. This is a simple and low number, but Singer prevents any attempt to question it. Singer explains that this number takes into account, “the cost of raising money, administrative expenses, and the cost of delivering aid where it is most needed.” (380). Even after calculating the overhead, Singer demonstrates that it takes pitifully little to save a child. After his readers take into account these statistics, Singer provides more facts to prove how little Americans are influenced by this issue. Singer explains that, though the “United Nations suggests that governments give 0.7% of their gross national products to overseas aid, the U.S. gives only 0.09%, whereas Japan gives 0.22% and Denmark gives 0.97%”(383). Readers realize that America is far more affluent than Denmark, or even Japan. Readers are then forced to realize, guiltily, that the U.S. doesn’t even give as much as less fortunate nations. Once this is compared to another of Singer’s statistics “that, though the average American household needs only spend $30,000 a year for necessities, many make far more than that and hence have far more to spare” affluent Americans may begin to feel the extra, and unnecessary, income burning in their pockets, ready to rush to the rescue of the world’s poor (384).
Finally, through comparisons of middle class luxuries to human necessities, Singer pulls the last strings on readers’ hearts, appealing to the guilt of affluent Americans and convincing them that the attainment of luxuries is petty and selfish compared to the needs of the world’s poor. Through comparisons, an author can show readers the distinct similarities and differences between two things for persuasive effect. Using this discourse strategy, Singer shows affluent Americans the stark differences between the luxuries they enjoy and the necessities the world’s poor crave. As mentioned before, Singer notes that it only takes $200 in donations for an organization like UNICEF to save the life of a child. These suggestions lead readers to think of those television commercials asking for $21 a month and showing starved children with dysentery who might survive if provided clean water, a sufficient supply of rice, and simple vitamin supplements and antibiotics. These are basic, even meager, commodities that most Americans take for granted. As if this suggestion isn’t enough, Singer compares these with what Americans could give up to save such children. Singer explains that many Americans need only give up a month of restaurant visits. This simple luxury, he claims, can mean the difference between life and death for a child. He returns to this notion again by comparing it to other American luxuries. “That’s right; im saying that you shouldn’t buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house, or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1000 suit could save five childrens lives”(384). Singer shows how easy it is for affluent Americans to give up what they don’t need so children around the world can have what they do need. After all of this, a few guilty Americans might just be ready to sacrifice their luxuries to run out and mail a check.
Through his hypothetical narrations, the juggling of facts and statistics, and, comparisons of middle class luxuries to human necessities, Singer, in fact, appeals to the guilt of affluent Americans, convincing that, in their luxury, they ought to be more involved toward the world’s poor. It is typically assumed that, in the tradition passed down from Plato, powerful thinkers use logic, and logic only, to make their arguments as well as their decisions. But for Peter Singer, a self-described utilitarian philosopher, it may indeed be impossible to separate the logical reasoning of means from the emotional consequences of human action. Thus, Singer shows that emotions are not only important to persuading an audience but that they are also important to making decisions that save lives all over the world.
(Possible introduction?) Plato, the father of Western philosophy, thought that emotions were the bane of reason.

To him, the logical, thinking consciousness of a human being should always control the spirit or emotions. Aristotle, Plato’s student, discovered an important place for emotion, though, when he examined public speaking. In his studies, he realized that appeals to emotion, or pathos, played an almost equal part to logic in persuading an audience to act or think differently. Now, it seems that Aristotle’s ideas overcame Plato’s because, in the 20th century, philosopher Peter Singer practices Aristotle’s important teachings on rhetoric in his editorial “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” published in the New York Times Magazine, about the ethical contradictions that allow us to ignore the hunger and suffering of the world’s poor. Logos, of course, is an important strategy for any philosopher. Singer, though, through his hypothetical narrations, the juggling of facts and statistics, and comparisons of middle class luxuries to human necessities, appeals to the guilt of affluent Americans, convincing them that the attainment of luxuries is petty and selfish compared to the needs of the world’s

poor.