The Singer Solution to World Poverty In his essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate all income not required for necessities to overseas aid organizations. His article, published on September 5, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, poses several hypothetical and dramatized situations which he uses as comparisons concerning Americans who do not donate excess income. Singer interweaves dollar amounts to break down how much it takes to save a child. The use of precise language within the text establishes a strong tone and voice. The words and layout support the larger conversation of moral obligation, while acting as a vessel to transport …show more content…
He is faced with the decision to choose to save the life of a child from a runaway train or to save his luxury car. Bob chooses to save his car. Singer states, “Bob’s conduct, most of us will immediately respond, was gravely wrong.” In this way he is keeping up the appeal to tragedy. Singer uses Bob as an emotional conduit throughout the essay after he is introduced. His presence is a direct tragedy based support to Singer’s main claim. It is stated that “If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob not to throw the switch that would have saved the child’s life, then it is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money…”By using such a statement, Singer is asking readers to consider the genuineness of their morals and beliefs. Singer uses Bob to conclude the essay as well. In the conclusion, Singer summarizes that,” We are all in that situation.” Singer preludes this concluding sentence by defining the overall situation as sacrificing savings to save the lives of innocent children. He ultimately relies on tragedy to persuade readers to donate their excess …show more content…
An accusatory tone resonates throughout the text. In the first eight paragraphs, Singer uses “we” and “us”. For example it is stated that, “…reminds us that we, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children.” Singer proposes that “we” are the solution; he connects himself to the readers. However, there is a shift to the use of the word “you”. It is asked, “How should you judge yourself if you don’t do it?” This particular question creates a shift; the text now focuses on not just the reader as an individual but more specifically an American with excess income. It is assumed that the reader has enough income to make a donation. The language used suggests that Singer has assumed the belief that the reader will donate, otherwise they will either pass self-judgment or risk moral judgment from others. Singer intensifies this with the use of “them” and “those”. He is referring to, “those who can afford to donate to overseas aid organizations but don’t…” Singer is critical when speaking about Americans who have the means to offer financial assistance, but choose not to. It can be concluded that he is accusing them of committing an act comparable to that of Bob. Eventually, “we”, “you”, “them”, and “I” are all incorporated. Singer uses his voice to heighten the tone with this statement, “Comfortably off Americans who give, say, 10