As a utilitarian philosopher, Singer favors policies that provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. In this article, he identifies an opportunity to redistribute the benefits of wealth, and his purpose is simple: to convince readers of their moral obligation to give more money to life-saving charities. Rather than appealing to readers on an emotional level, as is typical of donation requests, Singer tries to win them over primarily through logic.

Singer structures his essay to facilitate readers’ gradual understanding and acceptance of his arguments. By opening with Dora’s story, Singer allows readers to explore the ethics of his argument in a relatively non-threatening way. This is possible because Dora’s situation is fictional and likely somewhat removed from the lived experience of most of Singer’s readers, making it easy for them to judge her situation without strong emotion. By discussing this episode first, Singer secures readers’ agreement with his ethics before they recognize the full implications.

Bob’s situation, on the other hand, may hit closer to home for typical readers of the New York Times. Like Bob, such readers may have highly prized material possessions, as well as concerns for financial security in retirement.