More handpicked essays just for you.
Andrew carnegie importance of the gospel of wealth
Andrew carnegie importance of the gospel of wealth
Andrew Carnegie and the Rise of Big Business Sparknotes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Andrew carnegie importance of the gospel of wealth
Andrew Carnegie was a Scottish-born industrialist who started with nothing and built his way to the top through years of hard work. In the 1889 article, “Gospel of Wealth,” he advocated the ideas of philanthropy to encourage the rich to promote the welfare of humanity instead of conspicuous consumption. This altruism of allocating funds from the well-off was an idea that could help bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. He concluded with the statement, “the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced” to proclaim that millionaires and billionaires should pass on their wealth to encourage a legacy of giving either by inheritance or charity. I agree with his statement because his message is kind-hearted and humanitarian. Instead of taking millions to the grave, the money should be dispersed to help the community and individuals in our society.
Carnegie was a self-made man with a rags to riches story and an outlook larger than life. He sought out to encourage the wealthy to return the money back to the community. In his “Gospel of Wealth,” he exemplifies the futility of leaving the mon...
Andrew Carnegie, was a strong-minded man who believed in equal distribution and different forms to manage wealth. One of the methods he suggested was to tax revenues to help out the public. He believed in successors enriching society by paying taxes and death taxes. Carnegie’s view did not surprise me because it was the only form people could not unequally distribute their wealth amongst the public, and the mediocre American economy. Therefore, taxations would lead to many more advances in the American economy and for public purposes.
Even though these men attempted to build a stable foundation for America to grow on, their negative aspects dramatically outweighed the positive. Even though Andrew Carnegie donated his fortunes to charity, he only acquired the money through unjustifiable actions. As these industrialists continued to monopolize companies through illegal actions, plutocracy- government controlled by the wealthy, took control of the Constitution. Sequentially, they used their power to prevent controls by state legislatures. These circumstances effect the way one
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
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)
Andrew Carnegie and Walter Rauschenbusch represent two opposing sides in the integration of Christian faith into society. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth stated that the rich must reinvest their earnings into social programs that would benefit the poor without providing excess money that would enable them to spend frivolously on items that would not actually improve their overall situation. In contrast, Rauschenbusch was more concerned with the physical well being of those in lower classes. Both men wrote their works as a moral response to the rapid changes industrialization produced in their economies; similarly, today’s economy is rapidly changing as a result of technological development. However, morality has struggled to keep up with the exponential advancement in technology, leaving people with little
In my opinion Carnegie is a truly a hero. Today we don’t see a lot of men giving their money away when they die. Carnegie did change many lives for the better, and he did help save lives as well. In Document B Carnegie would word how the wealthy would never do anything with their money for the better, he didn’t want to became one of them. Carnegie quote was “ The man who dies rich dies disgraced”, by that he means why would you all that money go to waste, you are going to be died, that money could help save many lives that is why he was one who changed
"…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)
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.
Document M gives us quotes from Andrew Carnegie’s, “Wealth” in the North American Review, June 1889. He states that he wanted more than just the wealthy to prosper: “The man who dies rich is a disgrace.” He was one of those men who would leave their wealth for public use on his deathbed. He never spent too much of his money because he wanted to “set an example of modest... living…; and… to consider all surplus revenues… as trust funds;” he’s a little bit of a hypocrite. Carnegie’s ideas are criticised for the mistakes along the way, but when his ideas came to be, they made big impacts all around the
Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth. 391st ed. Vol. 148. N.p.: North American Review, 1889. Print.
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.
Carnegie did not believe in spending his money on frivolous things, instead he gave most of his fortune back to special projects that helped the public, such as libraries, schools and recreation. Carnegie believes that industries have helped both the rich and the poor. He supports Social Darwinism. The talented and smart businessmen rose to the top. He acknowledges the large gap between the rich and the poor and offers a solution. In Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie, he states, “the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee 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” (25). He believes the rich should not spend money foolishly or pass it down to their sons, but they should put it back into society. They should provide supervised opportunities for the poor to improve themselves. The rich man should know “the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise- free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind” (Carnegie p. 28). Also, Carnegie does not agree they should turn to Communism to redistribute wealth. Individuals should have the right to their earnings. Corporations should be allowed to act as it please with little to no government
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.
...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.
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.