Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Singer uses the device of concession in several places, which leads the reader to view him as a reasonable person, not absolute or rigid in his thinking. The result is that the reader is more likely to accept his ideas. One main concession has to do with Singer’s central principle that we have a moral obligation to prevent something bad if we can. He first states that we should act to do so if it does not involve sacrificing something “of comparable moral importance” (5-6). Then he qualifies the principle: Our moral duty ends when we would be giving up something “morally significant” (14) instead. This makes it so that individuals can decide for themselves what is “morally significant” for them personally.

Another concession comes in discussing the power of consumer society. Singer wishes to end overconsumption, which means pruning back consumer culture, but he concedes that going too far could reduce the gross national product, making less money available for foreign aid, running counter to his aims. Thus, he acknowledges the need to find the right balance.

Singer opens with an image that triggers sympathy: “people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care” (1). Using pathos like this appeals to readers’ emotional concern for those in need. Still, suffering on such a vast scale, halfway around the world, is too abstract to spur most people to action. Singer pivots to another example—a drowning child—to make a vivid analogy. Here the reader is presented with a scenario involving the height of innocence: a young child. This creates even deeper pathos, making it an effective way to evoke the suffering of Bangladeshi refugees and a strong prod for the need to act.