Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Singer’s essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is in the standard form of an argument. His writing is direct and objective, attempting to persuade readers primarily through logic, with a minimum of emotional appeal and figurative language. Singer does, however, permit himself a few subtle points intended to prod the reader or grab attention. This even-handed tone is juxtaposed with the radicalism of his ideas. Though the essay was first published in an academic journal, which by definition has a limited readership, his audience is essentially everyone in developed countries—that is, citizens of affluent nations.

Without introduction, Singer states the problem he’s addressing: People and governments have the power and means to stop the suffering of millions of people in Bangladesh and have simply decided not to. This grabs the reader’s attention by prompting the question, “How can that be?” and the desire to read on and learn more.

From there, he walks through his argument in straightforward fashion. He starts with an assumption that axiomatic (suffering is bad), creating from it a principle: We should act to prevent suffering if doing so does not involve a morally significant sacrifice. His approach is strictly utilitarian, a philosophical approach that is intended to maximize well-being and minimize suffering. However, to get his point across, he does appeal to emotion with story of the drowning child. Few readers can visualize the scene without a tug at the heartstrings, as it is human nature to want to protect a defenseless child. Relying on this universal response, Singer draws a moral equivalence between this kind of easy rescue and helping a similarly imperiled unknown person thousands of miles away.

Singer anticipates quite a number of counterarguments and objections, rebutting them with reasoned logic. His willingness to make some concessions to the criticisms he imagines increases the reader’s perception that he is flexible and open-minded. First, he qualifies his main principle to make the threshold for taking action more subjective and personal. He also acknowledges the delicate balance involved when discussing the effects of capitalistic consumption, one of his main themes. While he’s in favor of greatly weakening consumer culture’s hold on people, he understands that completely disrupting the economy would prevent his readers from having the financial means to help those in need. In the end, he leaves the issue to be hashed out by others more qualified than he is.

All of the above masks the radical nature of Singer’s proposal. Rather than setting off verbal fireworks, he downplays his revolutionary argument by calmly suggesting that our moral framework “needs to be altered, and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society” (4-5). Evidence of the gravity of what he is proposing can be found by quantifying the text: Singer spends the first 13 pages of his essay setting up his argument and defending it, while the next 17 pages explain this change in moral framework and its ramifications. This is where he discusses the moral lens through which we view everything and decide whether or not to take action. Acts of charity would, under Singer’s system, become obligations—a sea change in perspective.