People have completely different prospectives on the way they view ownership because of the values they set within each item. I have come to realize this from experiences within my own family because they have taken things that I cherish for granted. There is a correlation between ownership and sense of self due to the effects of tangible goods and thoughts working hand in hand.
Having items that you own leads to what you chose to do with them. We have people who chose to give what they own and others who always try to gain more for their best interest. Philanthropist, someone who identifies and exercising their values in giving and volunteering, Robert Brockman donated $250 million to a college in Kentucky because of his passion for higher education. This clearly shows, that his ownership of wealth helps determine his character by the way he choses to serve education in this case.
…show more content…
This creates a third type prospective. Most people can relate to this within the community of Santa Maria. Many of the families income isn't sufficient enough to be able to give to others physical items, but the knowledge they own is another way they contribute. The identity people feel is one way they can use their thoughts to share their ownership of themselves. Jk Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, stated with nothing besides her ideas. She then decided to share them with the world, and it changed her life and the lives of many. What she did was help others relate to a topic and started communities where people could come together. Her identity was put into these books. Another person who persuades people and started off with hardly nothing is Eric Thomson a motivational speaker to inspire individuals to go out and succeed in life. The presentation of his story is the ownership of his experience which isn't always physical items. Peoples thoughts and ideas can still influences others personal image by the ownership of their
Examples of such viewpoints can be found through the works of many great thinkers throughout the centuries, some dating back to 400 years BCE. A Greek philosopher who developed his viewpoint on ownership was Plato. Plato, being the student of Socrates, was very well educated in philosophical thinking, and he applied his superior knowledge to an analysis of ownership. Plato’s views on ownership entailed the idea that owning objects is detrimental to a person 's character. He believed that the possession of materialistic goods actually damaged a person’s morality. Another Ancient Greek philosopher who would apply his knowledge to the relationship of ownership was Aristotle. Aristotle was Plato’s most successful and intelligent student. Aristotle used the knowledge he had acquired from his mentor to create his own viewpoints which completely contradicted the ideas laid out by Plato. Aristotle said that ownership of tangible goods helps to develop moral character. In other words, Aristotle believed that the possession of materialistic goods could, in fact, help in the development of one’s moral character. One of the more recent philosophers which will be discussed is Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre believed that ownership extends beyond objects to include intangible things as well. In this way, Sartre is working very closely with the Theory of
One of the best-known philanthropists was the American industrialist Andrew Carnegie, who devoted the latter part of his life to giving away most of the huge fortune he had amassed in the steel industry. Following the principles laid down in his essay “Gospel of Wealth” , Carnegie returned over $300 million to society, primarily through foundations and trusts. Debs believed that wealth is predestined and that god gave him his wealth. Although different in ideas Carnegie perform what Eugene V. Debs believed in: the distribution of wealth.
In June 1889, Andrew Carnegie wrote an article known as, “The Gospel of Wealth,” or “Wealth,” which portrays the responsibility of philanthropy. In the article, Carnegie acknowledges the “three modes in which wealth can be disposed of, which are, “it can be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes… or, finally, it can be administered by its possessors during their lives…” Moreover, Carnegie believes a rich man shouldn’t leave a fortune to their families and men shouldn’t wait until death to donate money for public uses. In addition, Carnegie (1889) portrays that, the only mode for a rich man to use their fortune is, “to produce the most beneficial results for the community- the man of wealth thus becoming the … agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer; doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves… The man who dies rich dies disgraced,” (doc 8). Nevertheless, Carnegie believes that a man of wealth should donate as much money as possible during his life to become much good in the world while living. This evidence helps explain why Andrew Carnegie was a hero because he acknowledges that a man of wealth should donate to those in need while living which makes Carnegie a courageous
This statement is true, but the money that sustained the philanthropic ways of the Industrialists was obtained in a way exemplify the qualities of a Robber Baron. A list of Rockefeller's major donations added up to about $500,000,000. While this money went charities and hospitals, the money was made from unethical business practices and the undermining of employees. The Saturday Globe’s political cartoon of Carnegie shows him cutting wages and giving away libraries and money. Industrialists took money that went from their workers away to practice philanthropy. The money might have gone to great causes, but the way it was obtained is characteristic of Robber Barons. Andrew Carnegie's essay, “The Gospel of Wealth” he describes the role of the wealthy in the community. Carnegie class the millionaire a “trust for the poor” and states that the wealthy know how to best invest n the community. This role taken on by Carnegie and other wealthy Americans of the late 19th century is reminiscent of that of an oligarchy, where a small group has control of the community. The oligarchical position of the wealthy in Carnegie's essay is against the American values of freedom and individuality, and very discriminatory towards the
Philanthropy; the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes. Nobody better fits this definition than Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie had a beginning in poverty and after migrating to the United States he became the richest man in the world because of his steel business. After reaching such high success Carnegie ultimately decided to use his fortune to help people. Carnegie believed that his fortune should be spent on benevolent purposes, stating that “the man who dies rich dies disgraced” (The Gospel Of Wealth). Thus he donated millions of dollars to charities and foundations. Yet the question still
In order to decide whether the term "owning" helps develop your moral character, you must first figure out what owning something means to you. To me, "owning something" applies to not only the tangible, like a shirt, but also the intangible, like knowing something so well you own it, or even owning a behavior.
Through the eyes of the prosperous, a lack of wealth indicates a fault in character, while their own success is the product of self-control. Paul Buchheit, who analyzed seven different psychological studies in his article titled “Ways the Poor Are More Ethical Than the Rich,” found that “ample evidence exists to show a correlation between wealth and unethical behavior, ...wealth and a lack of empathy for others, and…wealth and unproductiveness” (Buchheit). The relationship between wealth and poor character implies that when people become rich, they start caring more about maintaining their money supply and less about the well-being of others. As wealth increases, generosity, integrity, modesty, and other positive characteristics diminish. Paul Buchheit also noted that “low-income Americans spend a much higher percentage of their income on genuine charitable giving, [with] about two-thirds of ‘charitable’ donations from the rich go[ing] to their foundations and alma maters” (Buchheit). This proves that the wealthy are generally self-absorbed because a large proportion of them, despite having an abundance of money, refrain from devoting it to those in need. When donations are made, it’s only for their own personal benefit. Because the wealthy are programmed to be self-centered, they fail to serve others with their money and instead serve
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
According to Aristotle, ownership of tangible goods can help to develop one’s moral character. I agree with his philosophy. Owning an object or other goods helps one to discover certain virtues, such as responsibility or purpose in caring for what you own. All objects you own, you must acquire, either through purchasing or through gift. Depending on how you acquire the object, defines its value, either monetary or sentimental. These different values help to develop one’s sense of self, as one grows as a person and develops one’s moral character. By learning these important skills, such as responsibility and purpose, one has a better understanding of oneself.
Identity can be described as the way we view ourselves; the way that we distinguish ourselves from others while also comparing our similarities. In other words identity is what makes someone unique and average at the same time. To start off with I was born and raised in Jamaica for 6 years with my parents, but due to the fact that my parents were offered an opportunity to attend school in America they dove for a chance of a better life. My first home was in Jefferson, Missouri where it seemed like it snowed every day. White sheets of snow would cover every inch of the city, no stone or rock was left without an inch of snow. The city was so beautiful to me because it would always light up in front of my eyes. The people there was so nice that
Erik Erikson composed a theory of psychological development that was composed of eight stages. Erikson’s theory focuses on how personalities evolve throughout life as a result of the interaction between biologically based maturation and the demands of society. According to Erikson, “Each stage of human development presents its characteristic crises. Coping well with each crisis makes an individual better prepared to cope with the next.” (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman, 2013, p. 314) According to Erikson’s eight stages of development, I have only been through six of the eight stages.
One of the main themes of Possession: A Romance by A.S. Byatt is the idea that while searching for the truth of a subject the researchers becomes possessed by their search. Byatt uses many characters as a vehicle for this idea, but the best character that illustrates this would be Mortimer Cropper. Mortimer Cropper is a Randolph Henry Ash scholar. Randolph Henry Ash is one of the most renowned poets in the novel. He is very famous and is an inspiration and influence to many of the poets in the modern age. Mortimer Cropper is the biggest collector and most well-known Ash scholar. He spends his live obsessed with anything having to do with Randolph Ash. From the start of the novel Mortimer Cropper is introduced as a very intimidating and possessive character. When new Ash artifacts are found and his rival Blackadder finds out of them he talks about Cropper immediately by saying “Cropper will have been through [the artifacts] with a tooth comb [already]”(Byatt 35). This shows just how possessed with his work Cropper really is. New artifacts, that no one has ever seen, of Randolph Henry Ash have been found and already it is thought that Cropper has, not only seen then but, already examined them with “tooth comb.” Jackie, Buxton writer of the scholarly article on possession What’s Love Got to Do with It? writes “Possession also exhibits a postmodern obsession with "the question of how we can come to know the past today”. The American academic, Mortimer Cropper, seeks to own the past by accumulating its material artifacts”(Buxton). This shows just how large Cropper’s obsession with Ash can be. Even a Possession scholar identifies this as worth mentioning. Cropper wants to own the past by collection thing that belonged to Ash. Cropper ha...
The second issue that I identified, relates to autonomy or self-determination. I struggled with labelling this fundamental concept in the social work discipline. My first blatant encounter with this issue occurred during the week of September 14th while I was attending a vigil. The patient was actively dying and requested that his spouse turn on the television. Initially she refused, she feared that it would agitate him and prevent him from resting. Since the patient was diagnosed with cancer rather than dementia, I felt that he was aware of what he was asking for and knew what he wanted. I directed by questions towards his spouse, because I did not want her to feel like I was trying to override her rules. I asked her if he normally watches
Who am I? Wrestling with identity— our history, our culture, our language— is central to being human, and there’s no better way to come to grips with questions of identity than through the crossing of borders. The transcendence of borders reveals the fluid nature of identity, it challenges absurd notions of rigid nationalities, and highlights our common humanity. It is no coincidence, then, that my experience as an immigrant has shaped my academic journey and pushed me to pursue graduate studies.
Introspection of oneself could be interesting and moderately to an extent challenging to put into words. There are many factors that influences who we are as an individual or as a part of a group. Generally speaking I believe we all wear several masks that portray us in different ways according to our settings and who we are around. Ever since I was able to get allowances and old enough to work, I invested in cameras in order to capture the various aspects of my life. I always thought I would reflect back on them to describe the moments, where I was in my life and my views during those moments. I could describe myself as many things; an outgoing, shy, caring, loyal, trustworthy, kind, an altruistic and conscientious person and etc. These are the ways I view myself, while others might have a different prospective of me. Gazing through the six pictures of myself reflects my perceived self-control, self-concept and self-presentation at the different stages within my life.