Why Would Jane Addams Have A Little Help To Become A Part Of A Higher Class

In the 1880s, a new generation of social workers, led by Jane Addams, argued that providing education and opportunity was more important than preaching morality. In 1889, Addams and a friend established Hull House in Chicago, where they lived and worked among the poor immigrants they aimed to help. Addams set up a kindergarten, a day nursery, and an employment bureau for the poor. On the other hand, Sumner is arguing (logically) that social classes will always exist, but that some men only need a little help to become a part of a higher class. He argues that “Instead of endeavoring to redistribute the acquisitions which have been made between the existing classes, our aim should be to increase, multiply, and extend the chances. The greater

Some become successful and some do not. He also argues that “giving alms” to the poor who have never tried to become successful, who have never utilized their chances and who don’t contribute anything to society should not be helped. That these poor should be left alone to fade into the “poor man” class. However some poor men never received a chance, and those are the men that Sumner believes should be helped, to a certain point. They should only be helped enough so that they can help themselves and can begin fighting for a better life. The historical significance is that this essay was written at a time when Social Darwinism was all the rage, and men like Carnegie were distorting the views to better fit their own personal needs. To me this essay seems to better encompass the true meaning of social Darwinism, which all men get a chance to be great, but it just works out that not everyone will be. I do find his argument convincing. I agree whole-heartedly that people deserve chances to become better versions of themselves, but that not everyone deserves multiple chances. Also I found that his essay was very well structured and really helped to lead me to a point where I would

I agreed with Sumner on this situation, but I feel like there are some grey areas. He makes a great point when he says that the rich should not have to be penalized for being successful. If they earned their money they should be able to spend it how they choose without having to pay for the poor. The poor should be given a chance instead of charity. To me, Sumner's idea is very smart, he just needed to get to the details for it to be more understood. The kind of social ethics that Addams describes in Democracy and Social Ethics are in many ways compatible with the modern Ethic of Care. Addams’ social ethics, however, goes beyond the original concept of an Ethic of Care to provide answers to some problems that have arisen in Care Ethics. Addams’ ethics not only provide a response to the problem of cultural relativity, but she also addresses the issue of practical application of this theory. Moreover, Addams bridges the gap that has been created between care and justice. Finally, Addams expands the application of an Ethic of Care to issues in Politics and Democracy, areas of study that are not commonly addressed by Care Ethicists. Ethic of Care generally encourages people to think about the needs of others, and a willingness to consider the effects (both good and bad) of