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.