More handpicked essays just for you.
The influence of social Darwinism on society
Social darwinism essay introduction
The development of social Darwinism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The influence of social Darwinism on society
As a man who lived on both sides of the economic spectrum of his time, Andrew Carnegie saw himself as a man of change and philanthropy. He believed himself to be the one to diminish the theory of Social Darwinism and help other lower class workers go from “rags to riches.” Carnegie recognized the fairness and legitimacy of America’s rising system of social classes, however he wanted to do his part to help those who were struggling because of his past as a lower class man. While Carnegie had good intentions, his actions were not made out to be as helpful as he had planned. The Puck cartoon develops a satirical opinion on Carnegie’s generous donation of a lake to Prinecton. The Puck cartoon makes Carnegie out to be giver of all gifts with his caption, “His gift of a lake to Princeton suggests other deficiencies of nature which …show more content…
The cartoon focuses on people getting what they want just because they ask for it, while the entire theory of Social Darwinism is being great because you are born great by natural selection. A proponent of Social Darwinism would not find it as humorous that people are getting what they want just because of a simple request. They would find it outrageous that such wild demands were being made without showing any promise or effort in return. In his famous article, “The Gospel of Wealth,” Carnegie focused on how social class and wealth had been revolutionized. Carnegie claims that the clear differences between the rich and the poor were a great step forward in society. “The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to-day measures the change which has come with civilization” (Carnegie, 53). Proponents of Social Darwinism would most definitely agree with Carnegie’s writing over the Puck article because they too would have wanted a clear and definitive difference between those who are great and those who are
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
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
On the other hand, Carnegie understands that there exists inequality, but he believes that the superior can cooperate with the inferior to gain equality. In fact, it the document he clarifies, “There remains…only one mode of using great fortunes…in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor−a reign of harmony” (Carnegie, 54). Carnegie does not particularly consider inequality a problem. He understands that in order for wealthy to facilitate the lives of the poor, there must be inequality to establish status, but he also discerns that by helping the poor they are given a chance to reach equality. In fact, Carnegie says, “Individualism will
This idea of Social Darwinism gave the robber barons of society the justification for their hostile behavior towards their workers. Andrew Carnegie tried to make the gospel of wealth by arguing that the duty of someone with power and a lot of money was to put advancement into the society such as libraries. John D. Rockefeller also used this idea and gave away some of his wealth to education as well. However, many socialists, promoting fair distribution of wealth, tried to write books, which were very popular and best sellers at the time to address the social development issue of the economy. The factory workers had no opportunity to gain the independence and advancement of their social class.
...interpretations of their assumption of millions of dollars. Due to their appropriation of godlike fortunes, and numerous contributions to American society, they simultaneously displayed qualities of both aforementioned labels. Therefore, whether it be Vanderbilt’s greed, Rockefeller’s philanthropy, or Carnegie’s social Darwinist world view, such men were, quite unarguably, concurrently forces of immense good and evil: building up the modern American economy, through monopolistic trusts and exploitative measures, all the while developing unprecedented affluence. Simply, the captains of late 19th century industry were neither wholly “robber barons” or “industrial statesmen”, but rather both, as they proved to be indifferent to their “lesser man” in their quests for profit, while also helping to organize industry and ultimately, greatly improve modern American society.
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 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.
The concept of Social Darwinism was a widely accepted theory in the nineteenth-century. Various intellectual, and political figures from each side of the political spectrum grasped the theory and interpreted it in various ways. In this paper, we will discuss three different nineteenth-century thinkers and their conception of Social Darwinism. The conservative, Heinrich von Treitschke, and liberal Herbert Spencer both gave arguments on the usefulness of competition between people on a global scale. The anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, refuted the belief of constant competition among members of the same species and emphasized mutual aid.
Andrew Carnegie does not believe wealth is distributed properly (Carnegie 485). In fact, he has a few different ideas of how to distribute wealth. In Carnegie’s essay, “The Gospel of Wealth,” he states, “There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of .” The first way he suggests to dispose of wealth is to pass it down in the family after the one with wealth passes away. The second way to dispose of wealth is, after death, distribute it for public uses. The third and final way one can dispose of wealth is by giving it to others while he or she is alive. This idea most reflects the idea of a communist in the case that the surplus wealth is distributed and becomes the property of many. All of the above are different ways that Andrew Carnegie felt wealth could be distributed among people. He says that the third and final way to distribute wealth is a lot like the beliefs of Karl Marx in the sense that Marx strongly believes in communism.
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
Written in a collection of essays in 1883, Professor William Graham Sumner explains a system: Social Darwinism, involving the poor, the philanthropists and the main focus, the forgotten man. Sumner explains the forgotten man as someone practical, quiet and hard-working but also ignored in society. Sumner views society’s system as philanthropists giving money to the poor, and the forgotten man paying the taxes that come after. At first, Sumner described the poor as people with forced public attention, people who obtain the pity of philanthropists. He sees this as problematic because it prevents the forgotten man from getting a better living (greater capitalism). Then, Sumner introduces the idea that people should remember the forgotten man,