Rhetorical Analysis of The Solution of World Poverty by Peter Singer

When you bring up world poverty it always seems to depress people, yet they go eat out once a week and they buy things that they do not even need. Do people really care about world poverty, if they are willing to spend unnecessary on things they do not need. The Solution of World Poverty by Peter Singer goes into detail about how we should act versus how we normally act. We tend to judge people for their actions of not helping the poor, when we do the exact same thing when we spend money on unnecessary things.

People who are wealthy have it better not off and can spend money on whatever they want. According to Singer he argues that “whatever money we are spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” Very early on in the Singers essay, you meet a people named Dora and Bob. They choose money over helping people. They are not the only one who does this the author points out Americans spend, “almost one-third of its income on things that are not necessary”. Which some people hearts break at the fact people are willing to spend so much money on one thing, but they don’t help the poor. Anything that you buy that you do not need is unnecessary and you could help people in poverty. If you buy unnecessarily things, then you have no right to judge what other people are doing with their money. We are all guilty of buying unnecessary things, instead of helping the poor.

Lots of people want to help end world hunger. Singer thinks that he has a solution to end world hunger. The ethical solution that he came up with is he thinks that if we give up everyday luxuries then we will find the cure to world hunger. Luxuries would consider anything from eating out to clothes that could be considered out of season. “The money you will spend at the restaurant could help save lives of children overseas”. Singers point could be credible and there is well thought out evidence of how it could work. With saying that though, he could come across aggressive and rude he is telling you should not buy that “new car, take a cruise or redecorate your house.” He would have lost a lot of people’s attention on telling them how they should act from the very beginning. Now with the fact that I agree with the whole don’t eat out as much method that he has mentioned, sometimes you need to do things for yourself too, that’s where I feel that Singer is being too passive with what he has to say.

The Solution to World Poverty is filled with emotion that Singer wants you to feel. While reading his essay, I felt convicted on how much money I spend that I really should not spend. As a teenage girl I want to keep up with the newest trends and not wear last year’s fashion. Singer states that “buying new clothes is not essential” and quite frankly just a waste of money. After reading this I sat there and realized how much I say I want when there are people that live in poverty all around the globe.

Bob didn’t save a kid’s life from a train, but if that makes us upset which it should but we should give then he tells us we should give to things “like UNICEF or Oxfam America”. He is telling us that we cannot judge Bob, if we will not donate to these places. Also, Bob he brings the sad point that yes, it’s one kid but also why are we getting so heartbroken about one kid when we can still save millions of kids. Sadly, there is so many kids everywhere but when they aren’t doing anything it’s not wrong. Singer knows that we think better about ourselves if “put vintage cars ahead of a child’s life”. Then he tries to make you feel bad about taking your person out to eat. I get the point that he is trying to make and it would be better to cut back on some going out to eat. You need to treat yourself sometimes, you can still go out to eat but also do yourself some good with giving some money out. All of these pulled at my heart strings and they should.

Singer states that most Americans give “10% of their income to organizations overseas”. He explains that this is more than lots will do, but they should give more. In his mind this would be logical, but some people cannot afford to give more. He then goes on to tell you how much he thinks everyone should give.

Singer has his philosophy to on how much of your income that you should have given away. He states that if “have an income $50,000 you spend $30,000 on necessities then you should donate the other $20,000.” He states that the formula is simple if you make more or less then that then, whatever money that you do not spend on necessities” should be given be away”. This would be what Singer would use as his logic, but it does not make sense therefore it’s not relevant.

Overall The Solution to World Poverty, would not be considered credible. Singer does not give any information on what his degree is to be proven as credible. As good as it is donating to other organizations, because there are so many people living below the poverty line. It does open up your eyes on how maybe you shouldn’t spend so much money on things, but this article is all opinions of how he feels about everything.

Between Ethos, Pathos and Logos we see what Singer about feels about people spending unnecessary things on ourselves instead of helping those in need. Singer gives certain numbers on how much he thinks that certain people need to donate based on how much you make. Making sure that you are not being hypocritical on what you think, if you’re not willing to donate then do not judge other people.