Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A short essay on philanthropy
The PERSPECTIVE OF GENEROSITY
Wealth by Andrew Carnegie
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie is the most well-known essay of the famous industrialist turned philanthropist in which Carnegie stated what he saw as the problem in which the way wealth was administered in society. Although he did not loathe for a small portion of the population controlling most of the country’s money in reality Carnegie suggested it was needed for a wealth gap to be present while not everybody can have the fanciest things it’s important as it ensures that there is always progress being done to ensure a better quality of life for the lower class as the bar is constantly being raised to prevent a halt in the race of development. “This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential for the progress of the race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that is …show more content…
With the best way to ensure that their money was spent responsibly was for them to spend it for the public while they still lived as leaving it to family beyond a sustainable amount is harmful and only spoils them and distributing one’s money to the state after their passing is almost as bad as not distributing it at all as they would likely be the people who would take their money with them to the afterlife if they could. As well as people can’t show gratitude to the deceased nor should they as they only helped after they couldn’t use their money and not while they lived. “Besides this, it may fairly be said that no man is to be extolled for doing what he cannot help doing, nor is he to be thanked by the community to which he only leaves wealth at death. Men who leave vast sums in this way may fairly be thought men who would not have left it at all, had they been able to take it with them.” (12th
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.
At this time, Vanderbilt had emerged as a top leader in the railroad industry during the 19th century and eventually became the richest man in America. Vanderbilt is making it abundantly clear to Americans that his only objective is to acquire as much wealth as possible even if it is at the expense of every day citizens. Another man who echoed such sentiments is Andrew Carnegie. In an excerpt from the North American Review, Carnegie takes Vanderbilt’s ideas even further and advocates for the concentration of business and wealth into the hands of a few (Document 3). Carnegie suggests that such a separation between the rich and the poor “insures survival of the fittest in every department” and encourages competition, thus, benefiting society as a whole. Carnegie, a steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest businessmen to date, continuously voiced his approval of an ideology known as Social Darwinism which essentially models the “survival of the fittest” sentiment expressed by Carnegie and others. In essence, he believed in widening inequalities in society for the sole purpose of placing power in the hands of only the most wealthy and most
Andrew Carnegie, the “King of Steel”, the benevolent employer, the giant of industry, was among the greatest influences of the second industrial revolution. It is sometimes questioned whether Carnegie was the ruthless, sneaky steel tyrant some made him out to be, or the generous, benevolent education benefactor he appeared to be. I believe him to be a combination of both, but more so the great giant of industry.
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
Andrew Carnegie, a robber - barron that took advantage of his poor employees and his relentless competition, his personal intentions and innovations on the steel industry and philanthropic distributions positively changed America's society and views of education.
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.
In a nutshell, it can be argued that in the event of serious economic developments, various people and groups held different views of what exactly a wealthy society should be. It is crystal clear that Andrew Carnegie and William Graham Sumner held same view on wealth accumulation whereas Henry George strongly advocated for policies that would enhance equality.
Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland in 1835. His father, Will, was a weaver and a follower of Chartism, a popular movement of the British working class that called for the masses to vote and to run for Parliament in order to help improve conditions for workers. The exposure to such political beliefs and his family's poverty made a lasting impression on young Andrew and played a significant role in his life after his family immigrated to the United States in 1848. Andrew Carnegie amassed wealth in the steel industry after immigrating from Scotland as a boy. He came from a poor family and had little formal education.
Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth. 391st ed. Vol. 148. N.p.: North American Review, 1889. Print.
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
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...
Speaking of where that money, in document #10 we see a small cartoon post from The Saturday Globe, Utica, New York, July 9, 1892. At the bottom it conveys, “Forty Millionaire Carnegie in his Great Double Role” With this message, it displays Carnegie both giving away a Library to Pittsburgh and money to Scotland, and cutting wages from workers. This drawing signifies what he does with the money rather than paying his workers with that money. Looking at wages in document #7 helps to see how much a worker are paid in a chart, even though iron and steel workers look like they have decent wages(daily hrs. 10.67, daily wages 1.81), it was to many unfair wages. Compare this to Carnegie’s daily “wage” was ninety two grand! Confirming wages are unfair.
Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” revolves around his ideas regarding capitalism, wealth, poverty, and public good. One main claim Carnegie makes, that sticks out in my mind is: the best and only way to handle the wealth inequality that has come about, is for the wealthy to distribute their surplus capital in such a way that benefits the masses. He declares this as he states, “The surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense the property of the many” (Carnegie 11). Prior to noting this claim, Carnegie argued that the government should not give the poor charity and that private groups should not simply give them money to help them., as often times this money is spent improperly, and not towards benefiting the masses.
In “The Gospel of Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie explains how the poor will not have to stay poor forever and vice versa for the rich. Carnegie believes that both social classes are hard working people and with the help of each other they will prosper, “The best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise.” While both classes of society are equally hard workers, Carnegie believes that it is the job of the rich to help the poor because they do not have the same opportunities as the
Here, then, is the issue. The gospel of Christ says that progress comes from every individual merging his individuality in sympathy with his neighbors. On the other side, the conviction of the nineteenth century is that progress takes place by virtue of every individual's striving for himself with all his might and trampling his neighbor under foot whenever he gets a chance to do so. This may accurately be called the Gospel of Greed.