Singer vs. Divakaruni: Ethos, Pathos, and World Poverty

Introduction: Two Essays on World Poverty

Peter Singer and Chitra Divakaruni each offer a powerful commentary on world poverty. Both of their respective essays — "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" and "Live Free and Starve" — demonstrate strong writing skills and effective rhetoric, making them worthy candidates for inclusion in any book club. However, of the two authors, only Divakaruni has firsthand experience of poverty. Singer's argument, while more shocking and immediately powerful than Divakaruni's, falls short because of his lack of personal credibility and his over-reliance on making the reader feel guilty.

Singer's Argument and Its Rhetorical Limitations

According to Australian philosopher Peter Singer, we live in a cold and heartless world. The analogies in his essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" bluntly suggest that those of us in the Western world are guilty of crimes against humanity simply by not donating $200 or more each month to charitable organizations. His first story is based on a Brazilian film called Central Station. The protagonist in the film was offered a thousand dollars to usher a child to his killer. When the character Dora discovers what she has done, she resolves to make amends. Singer, however, twists the tale to suggest that we, the readers of his essay, are similarly guilty of a crime. Like Dora, readers are not actually guilty of the crimes Singer accuses us of. Furthermore, Singer offers little ethos in his argument. His "solution to world poverty" is based purely on opinion and intellectual reasoning, not on lived experience.

The Role of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

Ethos is one of the three essential aspects of classical Greek rhetoric; it refers to the speaker's credibility — their credentials, life experience, or education. Ethos generally signals that the writer can be trusted. The other two aspects of Greek rhetoric are pathos and logos. Logos is the intellectual substance that makes an argument persuasive; while Singer has plenty of logos in his essay, his lack of ethos prevents "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" from being truly influential. Singer's article also possesses ample pathos, or emotional appeal. Pathos is, however, relatively easy to generate, and therefore Singer's essay is not a uniquely compelling piece of writing. While he correctly urges his wealthy Western readers to consider whether an expensive night out is worth the cost of a child's life, Singer's argument falls short of being truly meaningful because of his lack of personal credibility.

On the other hand, Chitra Divakaruni establishes her ethos from the outset of her article. An Indian woman who grew up relatively privileged yet within the caste system of India — where she observed severe social stratifications firsthand — Divakaruni writes about the same subject as Singer: starving children. Both authors urge their wealthy Western readers to act on the unequal distribution of wealth that plagues our world. Yet of the two, only Divakaruni possesses the ethos necessary to make her essay fully worthy of rhetorical analysis.

Conclusion: Choosing Divakaruni for Rhetorical Completeness

I came to the conclusion that Divakaruni's essay was a more compelling piece than Singer's mainly because of her background. I admit that my own prejudices might be in play with my decision. However, I also believe that the ancient Greek rhetoricians understood their craft well when they proposed that effective rhetoric rests on the proper combination of pathos, ethos, and logos. Upon encountering both essays, I recognized immediately that Divakaruni's offered a more well-rounded piece of persuasive writing — one that more aptly conveys the finer points of argumentative composition.

Both Singer and Divakaruni demonstrate pathos and logos. Singer's essay is well-written and emotionally strong; his suggestion that readers donate money to charity is particularly moving. In fact, I agree with Singer entirely on his moral point. After reading "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," I was nearly moved to donate to a charitable organization, and I will certainly think more carefully about the choices I make as a consumer.

Divakaruni's essay is more grounded, more rooted in lived experience. Her writing is borne of personal history, which is why I chose her article over Singer's. I produced my own argumentative essay in light of what I know about rhetoric and world politics and economics — both of which, I acknowledge, are areas where my knowledge is limited. I believe that anyone who has experienced something firsthand is a more credible speaker than one who purports to understand it from the outside. My selection of Divakaruni's essay reflects an awareness of the importance of the speaker's ethos and of the classical Greek rhetorical tradition. In retrospect, however, I recognize that I may have been unduly prejudicial. The fact that Singer lacks firsthand experience while Divakaruni has it does not automatically make his writing less worthy. Upon revision, I intend to examine both texts more closely in light of their literary merit, rather than basing my judgment solely on the ethos of their authors.