One common modern saying is that “money makes the world go round”. People living in developed nations, specifically the United States, often strive to become rich and live a life compromised of indulgences and luxuries. A topic of debate, however, is whether or not this way of living is selfish, and if we, as humans, have a responsibility to adopt alternate lifestyles that better foster the decline of poverty and, oppositely, the rise of adequate, healthy lifestyles for all of humanity. Both Dorothy Day in Loaves and Fishes and Peter Singer in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” acknowledge the consequences of this desire for excessive amounts of money and, alternatively, advocate for a lifestyle of voluntary poverty.
Dorothy Day lived her life serving the poor and now serves as a role model for people looking to live their lives dedicated to the less fortunate. Among the many things she did, one was educating people on the conditions of poverty, something we, as a society, tend to avert out eyes from. In her discussion of the
…show more content…
Day explicitly states that “this”, referring to Kenkle’s previous statement about the love of money, “ and other facts seem to me to point more strongly than ever to the importance of voluntary poverty today” (Day 86). Singer, similarly advocates for keeping only the money necessary to live adequately, and donating the remainder to those in need. He further breaks down this plan stating, “An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities”, and that, “for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world poor should be as close as possible to $20,000” (Singer 665). These conditions require that each person spend little to no money on any luxuries, but rather support the people who do not even have basic