The Singer Solution to World Poverty

As an experienced teacher and lecturer, Singer demonstrates awareness of the most common objections to his argument. Addressing such concerns, he not only exposes their logical flaws but also reveals the hypocrisy and denial lurking behind them. For instance, Singer addresses the objection that making donations is not necessary, since so many other people also fail to donate. Singer compares such “follow-the-crowd ethics” to the mindset of Germans who failed to actively resist the Nazi wrongdoing (62). The comparison implies that those who neglect donating are more concerned with their own personal comfort than they are with helping others; they may also be in denial about how dire circumstances really are. Singer’s subsequent critique of those who are reluctant to donate “more than [their] fair share” implies that they have similarly selfish motives (63).

Singer takes occasional jabs at readers who pride themselves on leading morally sound lives. After inviting readers to donate “before reading further,” Singer opens the next paragraph congratulating them for having “distinguished [themselves] morally from those who put their vintage cars ahead of a child’s life” (62). Singer knows, of course, that most readers will not have paused to donate between reading the two paragraphs, and he uses dramatic irony to emphasize readers’ moral failings. Later, Singer argues that even those who give 10% of their income to charity, which is well above average, “should be doing much more, and they are in no position to criticize Bob for failing to make the much greater sacrifice of his Bugatti” (63). Here and elsewhere, Singer’s exploration of the gap between what readers claim to believe is ethically correct—as evident in their quick judgments of Dora and Bob—reveals a hypocritical difference between belief and behavior. 

Despite the confidence of the title, Singer’s “Solution to World Poverty” is nothing of the sort: its publication came and went with little change in global poverty trends. What Singer’s article does offer, however, is a wake-up call to those with the power to effect change, if only on a personal level. After maintaining a focus on high ethical standards of behavior throughout the article, Singer changes tack in his conclusion. Acknowledging that most people will not see fit to donate large sums of money, he invites readers to face human shortcoming “head-on,” even when doing so “makes living a morally decent life extremely arduous” (63). His aim is not to induce readers to “wallow in guilt” but to help them identify a new, higher goal on which to set their sights (63). Those who take Singer’s views to heart will find that each of their purchases now comes with a new, previously unrecognized, opportunity cost: the lost chance to help someone in desperate need.

Singer’s closing reference to Bob’s situation continues the theme of newfound awareness. Whereas Bob must have considered himself “extraordinarily unlucky” to face such a difficult situation, Singer reminds readers that “We are all in that situation” (63). Awareness, however uncomfortable, has replaced ignorance.