The Case for Abundance One major claim that Carnegie addresses in his essay, “The Gospel of Wealth” is that excess wealth is only used effectively when not simply given away, but administered so that it only helps those who are worthy of receiving charity. Throughout his essay, Carnegie discusses in length the methods wealthy people use to dispose of their excess wealth, such as leaving it for their family or completely giving it away after their deaths, and talks about why they are ineffective. According to Carnegie, when giving charity, “...the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves…”(Carnegie, 4). The only time charity is useful is when the beneficiary uses the money to their advantage to better their lives. …show more content…
One is that it is just a method to dispose of wealth after it is no longer of any use. Furthermore, it can be assumed that if they had the opportunity to take the wealth with them after death, they would not have left any wealth. He also claims that if one leaves vasts sums money after death, he or she will not be thanked by the community, because after all, they had no role in how the money was used. This leads into another reason this method is not effective, because “the cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes are thwarted”(2). In other words, the benefactor has no say in how the money is spent and/or administered. While this may have been true many years ago, in present times, people who have promised to give their wealth away are administering it more effectively, and have already started giving money away. One example is Bill Gates, who along with his wife Melinda, are rounding up millionaires and billionaires around the world to join the Giving Pledge, in which the world’s wealthiest people are donating their money to future generations. Gates himself is giving away billions of dollars for the purposes of fighting diseases and improving renewable energy, and other entrepreneurs such as Tim Cook are going to donate and hav-e already donated millions of dollars towards fighting AIDS and HIV, as well as charities such as Save the Children and the Sea Shepherd Conservation
Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.
He explained that they had the responsibility to be philanthropic and donate their wealth to benefit society while they are living. If the wealthy keep their riches until they are dead, then it simply implies that the deceased would have wanted to bring the money with them if it were possible. Carnegie also explained that family members should not leave each other inheritances. By leaving them with a large amount of money, it gives family members no motivation to work hard; becoming lackadaisical. He wrote how one should contribute to society through charity, by donating towards a physical cause; and not by giving money to a homeless person.
"…admitting what is called philanthropy, when adopted as a profession, to be often useful by its energetic impulse to society at large, it is perilous to the individual whose ruling passion, in one exclusive channel, it thus becomes. It ruins, or is fearfully apt to ruin, the heart, the rich juices of which God never meant should be pressed violently out and distilled into alcoholic liquor by an unnatural process, but should render life sweet, bland, and gently beneficent, and insensibly influence over other hearts and other lives to the same blessed end." (348)
Singer’s belief that everyone should give away all excess wealth to eliminate as much suffering as possible conflicts with the idea of competition and, therefore, reduces the productivity of human civilization. Peter Singer, a professor of moral philosophy, stated in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that it is everyone’s duty to participate in philanthropy since it is morally wrong to not help someone who is suffering. Singer thoroughly explained the details of the “duty” of philanthropy: “we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility - that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” If this philosophy is followed, and the poor beneficiary experienced the same level of comfort as the wealthy benefactor, then what incentive would the beneficiary have for
The era that marked the end of civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century in the united states of America was coupled with enormous economic and industrial developments that attracted diverse views and different arguments on what exactly acquisition of wealth implied on the social classes in the society. It was during this time that the Marxist and those who embraced his ideologies came out strongly to argue their position on what industrial revolution should imply in an economic world like America. In fact, there was a rapid rise in the gross national product of the United States between 1874 and 1883. This actually sparked remarkable consequences on the political, social and economic impacts. In fact, the social rejoinder to industrialization had extensive consequences on the American society. This led to the emergence of social reform movements to discourse on the needs of the industrialized society. Various theories were developed to rationalize the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Various reformers like Andrew Carnegie, Henry George and William Graham Sumner perceived the view on the obligation of the wealthy differently. This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations.
In Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” he outlines what the rich man’s responsibilities to the public is regarding his wealth. Andrew Carnegie was one of his times wealthiest men and wrote this in 1889. He states that, “Our duty is with what is practicable now-with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably accomplish is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production of the good fruit under existing circumstances (Carnegie 23-24).” In his writing he talks about the best way to dispose of the wealth one has acquired. The remainder of this paper will address the
...ve up the fortunes they have built themselves. It is an admirable idea to give your money to help promote a thriving community. Carnegie states that he is against charity and believes that those in need should be taught how to improve their own lives. To fund these institutes and corporations a form of charity must be given. Wealthy citizens give their excess money to a few to disperse of in a way they see fit to help the race. Most Americans are not willing to give up such a large sum of money as noble and respectable of an idea as it is. I think that Carnegie’s plan, in theory, would work and would be best for the race. I do not think it is practical because most would rather spoil their own family with inheritance than give it away to help people unknown to them. Carnegie’s idea of fair is equal opportunities for everyone to help themselves and the race.
Andrew Carnegie and his philanthropy made him a hero because he helped more people than harm in the long run, by this I mean he helped other countries. He also sets a great example to everyone that helping others or someone is not something you need to wait to do when you are no longer living. If someone needed help and even a stable person had the choice to help but until they are no longer alive has little meaning. Perhaps it would be too late when the person isn’t around anymore. Its about what someone can do to help when they are around, it is about what a person can do in the time of need even if it is not much but a little of anything can go a long way. In (Doc C) there is a list of amounts of money that Carnegie has donated to various places which in total he has donated well over $271m but aside from that his corporation is giving out about $100m a year, most of it to education (Doc C)
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute to the idea of inequality and how it is not likely for the poor to be of equal status with the wealthy. Furthermore, Carnegie views wealth and poverty as a reciprocative relation. He does not necessarily state that the wealthy and poor are equal, but he believes that the wealthy are the ones who “should use their wisdom, experiences, and wealth as stewards for the poor” (textbook, 489). Ultimately, the consequences of
Carnegie, a Scottish immigrant, was the second richest man at the time but unlike other high-class people of his time he believed that the divide between the poor and wealthy needed to be smaller. Carnegie, unlike most in his position at the time, is actually expressing his want for more change, the improvement of social gaps, this makes him an outlier of the time . He describes America in the industrial revolution as very similar to England in the way of the effect of the Revolution. With little to no opportunities to gain wealth, the working class suffered through poor sanitation, bad working conditions, and limited food, factories taking over the country's workforce. In the article, Carnegie describes the changes of the human way of life over the past hundred years observing the revolutionization of the world. This source helps us understand the vast difference of the poor versus rich living conditions and the way the industrial revolution is affecting society. Although he mentions the changing living conditions, he also implies the moral shift that was
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.
We cannot love both at the same time. An example of this is people who
A wealthy person, with the desire to do well with their fortune, could benefit society in a number of ways. Carnegie has verbally laid a blueprint for the wealthy to build from. His message is simple: Work hard and you will have results; educate yourself, live a meaningful life, and bestow upon others the magnificent jewels life has to offer. He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’…” (401). He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
In the world today there is a lot of poverty. There is a great divide
Philanthropy, or the act of private and voluntary giving, has been a familiar term since it first entered the English language in the seventeenth century. Translated from the Latin term “philanthropia” or “love of mankind,” philanthropy permeates many social spheres and serves several social purposes including charity, humanitarianism, religious morality and even manipulation for social control.