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 …show more content…
aid their pursuit of wealth neglects their basic needs in health, happiness, and fortune. A better approach to philanthropy would be a mix of the philosophies of Carnegie and Singer.
Philanthropy should aid the growth of civilization by providing the poor with the living conditions and resources necessary to become productive and pursue a better life.
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
…show more content…
working toward a better life? Why would the benefactor work to gain his wealth in the first place if the “duty” of philanthropy deprives him of all reward? Singer even acknowledged this issue of productivity in his essay without presenting a solution. In a passage addressing how much overseas aid the UK should provide, he wrote: “If we gave away, say, 40 percent of our Gross National Product, we would slow down the economy so much that in absolute terms we would be giving less than if we gave 25 percent of the much larger GNP.” Ironically, philanthropy in Singer’s philosophy decreases the disparity in wealth, but mostly by making the wealthy poor rather than making the poor wealthy. Work must be tied to reward or there would be no reason to work more. The overall productivity of society would be greatly reduced if there was no disparity in wealth to serve as an incentive for people to contribute to society. Therefore, giving away wealth until the point of “marginal utility” is an irrational approach to philanthropy because it reduces the total amount of aid that can be provided to the poor. Carnegie’s paternalistic approach to philanthropy in the form of education does not address the welfare of the poor and leads to unnecessary suffering. In “The Memo,” Carnegie emphasized that the goal of wealthy should not be to accumulate wealth: “The amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry—no idol more debasing than the worship of money.” He believed that amassing wealth is wrong so strongly that he repeated it twice in the same sentence. However, he still enjoyed a sizable personal fortune. He also mentioned in his memo that he had annual income of $50,000 ($892,600 inflation adjusted). Carnegie bought and maintained the Skibo castle in Scotland and frequently enjoyed extravagant vacations because he saw these comforts of wealth as the reward of his hard work. This idea of reward for work was reflected in his philosophy on philanthropy. According to Carnegie, the poor shouldn’t receive any wealth that they didn’t earn. This is evident in his treatment of his workers, who were paid very little despite double digit work days of intense physical labor. However, Carnegie wanted the poor to have the ability to become wealthy. In his autobiography, he mentioned establishing several free libraries and higher education facilities so that the poor can become educated and, eventually, business owners like himself. However, Carnegie’s approach to philanthropy was incomplete because it failed to address the welfare of the poor. Welfare has three basic components: health, happiness, and fortune. As shown by the wages his workers received, Carnegie didn’t want to aid the fortunes of the poor. With their low pay and long hours, his workers didn’t have the time or money to pursue a career like Carnegie once did. Carnegie also didn’t care about the health and happiness of the poor. In the Battle of Homestead, Carnegie sacrificed the lives of his workers in an attempt to forcibly reclaim the Homestead factory from workers angered by their low pay and long hours. While providing education for the poor is essential for aiding their pursuit of wealthy, the poor will only pursue education after health, happiness, and fortune are no longer a critical issue. Drawing from the philosophies of both Carnegie and Singer, a better approach to philanthropy should focus on promoting productivity in the poor. As commonly understood in macroeconomics, productivity is central to the living conditions of all humans, both rich and poor. In order for the poor to be productive, they must first be concerned with their work. In his essay, Singer argued that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” and that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, ...we ought, morally, to do it.” Yet another reason to aid the suffering is that it will increase their productivity. The dying, starving, suffering, and homeless poor are either too preoccupied with perilous living conditions or too unwell to be productive. Therefore, Singer’s policy of eliminating unnecessary suffering is rational because it gives the poor the mental freedom needed to be productive. However, the poor must also want to be productive. For the poor to desire wealth, there must be some discrepancy between the level of comfort experienced by the rich individual and poor individual, some “necessary” amount of suffering so not too much aid can be given. The most common way to achieve wealth is to contribute value to society. Therefore, it follows that, to become rich and have higher comfort, the poor will strive to be productive. Carnegie’s philosophy of providing education to the poor is aligned with this reasoning, since it gives the poor a means to become rich by giving them the skills needed to contribute to society. If the poor are more productive, society will have greater abundance and innovation, ultimately raising the standards of living for everyone. Singer’s philosophy of eliminating unnecessary suffering, when applied with Carnegie’s principle of educating the poor to allow them to pursue wealth, promotes productivity in the poor and gradually raises not only the wealth of the poor but also the wealth of the rich. Philanthropy should aid the poor by providing them with the conditions and resources to become wealthy to aid competition and promote growth in human civilization.
Singer’s approach to philanthropy addresses the disparity between the wealth and poor as created by industrialization, a growth in civilization. However, his approach slows future growth in civilization. Carnegie’s massive fortunes and his workers’ relative poverty are a testament of the effects of industrialization and his philosophy aimed to bring those from poverty into wealth. However, he failed to address some fundamental needs that the poor have in his approach to philanthropy. Growth in civilization initially led to industrialization and the creation of the extreme disparities of wealth addressed in Carnegie and Singer’s philosophies on philanthropy. As civilization continues to progress and technology automates more fields of labor, the disparities of wealth will continue to grow. A better and more universally accepted approach to philanthropy is critical to the future welfare of the human
race.
Saint Augustine once said, “Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others.” (Augustine). Augustine's belief that it is the duty of the individual to assist those less fortunate than themselves is expressed in the essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. Singer shares his conviction that those living in luxury should support those struggling to survive in poverty. Singer adopts the persona of a sage utilitarian philosopher who judges the morality of actions based on the consequences that are wrought by them. Singer utilizes powerful pathos, rhetorical questions, ethos, and a bold tone which contributes to his purpose of persuading his intended audience of American consumers to live only on necessity rather than luxury as well as to donate their discretionary income to the impoverished.
According to Peter Singer, we as a society must adopt a more radical approach with regards to donating to charity and rejecting the common sense view. In the essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer argues that we have a strong moral obligation to give to charity, and to give more than we normally do. Critics against Singer have argued that being charitable is dependent on multiple factors and adopting a more revisionary approach to charity is more difficult than Singer suggests; we are not morally obliged to donate to charity to that extent.
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.
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.
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
In his article, the author Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to encourage people to reevaluate his or her ability to contribute to the underprivileged people of the world. Singer is addressing this article to any person with the ability to donate. The author makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. Additionally, in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author explain that we have a duty to give, but he is not stating whether it is a duty of justice in Narveson’s sense. He is not stating if would be morally correct for anyone to force us or impose to us to give to the needy. This author is trying to persuade or convince people to give voluntarily. The author is not enforcing to do something, this is contrary to Narveson’s position “enforced fee”. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” addresses the urgency for a more generous world. Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The main purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to
Singer continues by stating “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so.
The writer behind “Singers Solution to World Poverty” advocates that U.S. citizens give away the majority of their dispensable income in order to end global suffering. Peter Singer makes numerous assumptions within his proposal about world poverty, and they are founded on the principle that Americans spend too much money on items and services that they do not need.
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.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “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” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Singer suggested, “we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant” (C&M, 827). However, different philosophers and writers have criticized his view and the general idea to help the poor.
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.
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.