Peter Singer writes on world poverty in his essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” and the steps that the American people have had to help end world poverty but have not taken. Beginning his article with a summary of the movie Central Station, Singer uses it as a transition to state his thesis, “…so much of our income is spent on things not essential…that money could mean the difference between life and death for children in need” signifying his ideology somewhat of a progressive.
Something that I commend to Singer’s article is his use of all three modes of persuasion: pathos, logos, and ethos. Singer’s description of the main character in “Central Station” and her conscience ultimately intervening in saving a boy who she had sold off unknowingly to organ harvesters attempts to make a connection with our own consciences and remind us that we have the ability to take action. For ethos, in what makes him a qualified authority on the wrongness of poverty, Singer says in passing, “…a utilitarian philosopher like myself…” And Singer’s use of logos stems from his reasoning that after the American people use their income to pay for the necessities, the remaining money is spent on luxuries. Singer argues that the spending of luxuries is the same as looking a needy child in the face and choosing to look the other way for the sake of greed. And in my personal opinion this is true, as a people with such a high standard of living, we should be able to sacrifice more for poverty among other things. But Singer’s claim that the sole use American’s have for their money not spent on necessities is for luxuries is a logical fallacy that needs to be addressed.
Singer’s claim that all money remaining from necessary expenses (i.e. housing, groceries, gas, insurance, utilities, and taxes) is used on luxury items and entertainment. However, Singer does not take into account other factors such as the uncertainty of the future and wisdom of saving money for unforeseen circumstances. There are also family responsibilities such as caring for your elders and children and especially with tuition for education. Also on the list if you are a religious Christian or Catholic, you tithe ten percent of your income. One thing to note is that the people Singer addresses are the well off middle class people who seem to have money left over for their use, but the reality is many people even in the middle class struggle to meet ends meet.
In the end what sticks out the most is the idea of tending to one’s own before others. It is a selfish reality, but that is the reality we live in.
I found your article quite interesting to read. I especially enjoyed how you discussed Singer’s use of logos, pathos, and ethos rather than just pathos because this article is quite heavy in terms of pathos. However, I also think that you could have elaborated more on all three of the aspects, for there was no last impression after that part. I also liked how, in the end, you talked about other things which could put strain on one’s ability to donate to poverty such as other obligations and money in general. Overall, the response was quite good and touched on some of the most important things of the reading.
ReplyDelete