The Gospel of Wealth Reality 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 …show more content…
This is a very prideful way to view society. I believe that if a man works hard, he should be rewarded and can accumulate wealth that way. Not given money from the rich who worked hard to get wealth. In conclusion, “The Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie has some interesting ideas and a very philanthropical outlook, however this is not a reasonable way to solve economic issues and cross social lines. It allows the poor to receive hand outs and takes away the incentive to work. Even a man born into wealth can squander it and be left with nothing if he is not a hard
Carnegie understands the flaws with the law of competition, stating that their is often friction between the rich and the poor. He acknowledges that the law may be hard for individuals, but in the long run it will benefit the race. He continues that the competition of industrial and commercial are more than beneficial but will allow progress of society. He suggests that the wealthy can use their wisdom and experience and help set an example for those without guidance. Carnegie endorses the wealthy allow their surplus of wealth to be given to improve their community. He states that the riches passing through the hands of a few can be more beneficial than if the wealth distributed and was given directly to the
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 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
Heavy industrialization in the United States created a new economic reality in which “the poor enjoy[ed] what the rich could not before afford” by decreasing the labor and money needed to produce material goods (Carnegie). However, it also created problems for the poor in the form of pollution, moral deterioration, and lack of interest in work (Rauschenbusch). Despite the fact that both works focused on a Christian approach to interacting with the economy, their conclusions differed greatly, with Carnegie arguing for the rich to continue to accumulate and distribute wealth to public projects, and Rauschenbusch calling for the rich to redistribute directly to projects that would improve the daily health and moral well being of the poor. While the beliefs were inherently different, their importance was the same. It mattered less what actions the men perceived to be the most beneficial, because both were actively engaging the moral implications of technological advances and their effect on the economy, something that few modern economists
Researchers have proven that people with a lot of paraphernalia are normally not as cheery than less privileged people. There are many statements with a theme in these two writings. The poor man and greasers have simple needs which helps them be more joyful. The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton and the poem “Poverty and Wealth”, have similar themes. One of the themes in the poem and the Outsiders is, money can't buy happiness.
The concepts of poverty and wealth only have meaning relative to each other. While poverty can’t be eliminated without wealth becoming meaningless, the vast difference in living conditions between the wealthy and poor must be addressed. Andrew Carnegie, wealthy industrialist, and Peter Singer, moral philosopher, both argue that philanthropy should improve the living conditions of the poor. However, their approaches to philanthropy are vastly different, and both have inherent flaws. Singer’s philosophy that everyone has a duty to give away all their excess wealth until the point of “marginal utility” also removes the wealth incentive that drives societal productivity. On the other hand, Carnegie’s paternalistic policy of educating the poor to
Carnegie’s essay contains explanations of three common methods by which wealth is distributed and his own opinions on the effects of each. After reading the entire essay, readers can see his overall appeals to logos; having wealth does not make anyone rich, but using that wealth for the greater good does. He does not force his opinions onto the reader, but is effectively convincing of why his beliefs make sense. Andrew Carnegie’s simple explanations intertwined with small, but powerful appeals to ethos and pathos become incorporated into his overall appeal to logos in his definition of what it means for one to truly be rich.
Even before the beginning of the twentieth century, the debate between socialists and capitalists has raged. In The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, he portrays capitalism as the cause of all evils in society. Sinclair shows the horrors of capitalism. In The Gospel of Wealth, by Andrew Carnegie, he portrays capitalism as a system of opportunity. However, both Carnegie and Sinclair had something to gain from their writings; both men had an agenda. Capitalism and socialism both have advantages and pitfalls; when capitalism is adopted using certain socialist ideals, a truly prosperous society exists.
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
Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth. 391st ed. Vol. 148. N.p.: North American Review, 1889. Print.
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.
The Gospel of Wealth is primarily about the dispersion of wealth and the responsibilities of those who have it. Carnegie thinks that inheritance is detrimental to society because it does not do any good for the inheritor or the community. Inheritance promotes laziness and the lack of a good work ethic does not teach the young sons of wealthy men to make money for themselves or help those in community they live in. Carnegie believes that charity is also bad and instead of handouts money should be given to those in a position to help the needy help themselves to be better citizens. It is the responsibility of the wealthy to use their surplus earnings to start foundations for open institutions that will benefit everyone. Men who only leave their money to the public after they are dead which makes it appear to say that if they could take the money with them they would. For this reason Carnegie is in support of Death taxes to encourage men to spend and use their money during their life. Carnegie says in his essay that a definite separation of the classes is productive for society and is very natural. If the classes were to become equal it would be a forced and change thus being revolution and not evolution...
This wealth comes from the strength of our industry. “If thou does not sow, thou does not reap”(Hofstadter Recon.-Present Day pg.79). Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan are the epitome of this statement.
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.
Everyone has his or her own ideas of how wealth should be distributed properly. Some people believe wealth should be left to family, left for public services, or become the property of others. Others believe that people should not have excess wealth, resulting in non-existent class distinctions. An alternative view is that wealth is not distributed; instead, the wealthy continue to grow wealthier while those in poverty can not escape it and fall further into a life of poverty. The beliefs discussed above come from three different writers. Those writers include Andrew Carnegie, Karl Marx, and Robert B. Reich. These writers all have different opinions on how wealth should be distributed properly.