The Singer Solution to World Poverty Response

Tahiya Chowdhury                                                                                                            09/16/13

“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” Response

                     In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, Peter Singer effectively uses counterarguments and refutation to strengthen his argument.  Singer makes the choice of acknowledging and addressing the opposing views of his arguments and then denying the validity of the opposing claims. When touching upon the topic of individual’s fair share, he considered the opposing claim, “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?” By acknowledging this opposing claim, Singer appeals to logic. He proves that he understands a viewpoint other than his own, and he has knowledge about other evidences. Later he refutes by saying, “While the idea that no one need do more than his or her fair share is a powerful one, should it prevail if we know that others are not doing their fair share and that children will die preventable deaths unless we do more than our fair shares?” This refutation helps strengthen his argument by denying the validity of the counterargument and shows that he stands by his view. Singer’s farm grasp on the structural organization of the essay also serves as a logical appeal.  He also includes facts to logically support his argument and credibility of his argument.

          Singer’s use of the two theoretical scenarios greatly influenced the effectiveness of his argument.  It allowed him to invoke response from the readers and draw a parallelism between the characters of the two scenarios and Americans who do not donate. The comparison between the character of Bob and the people who do not donate,  is effective in portraying how those individual’s  determine whether a child lives or not. He also stressed the importance and the difference one can make by donating a small amount of their money which they spend on luxury. Singer used Peter Unger's theory that it would only take $200 to “help a sickly two-year-old transform into a healthy six-year-old.” This justification would make the readers want to donate money because it appeals to their emotion by making them feel sympathy for the sick children overseas, and portrays the difference they can make in a child’s life, by donating only $200.

           There are some parts of the essay when Singer’s argument loses its persuasion. At some points, Singer went to extreme measures to convince people to donate. He relied more on guilt-tripping the readers than persuading with justifications, which can ultimately cause the readers to feel accused and lose interest in the argument. Singer, in a sense, commands the readers to donate each penny they spend on luxury, “whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” This weakens his argument because earlier he asked people to donate just $200 dollars, but now he asks them to donate every cent of their extra money. The idea of giving up all of their extra money that they earned can cause people to feel irritated and object the idea. His continuing push to make people to donate can make some readers feel they are being pressured.