More handpicked essays just for you.
Charles Darwin theory of natural selection and social Darwinism
Social darwinism essays
Essays on social darwinism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Social Darwinist William Graham Sumner believed that helping the poor was unwise because it interfered with the law of nature and would weaken the evolution of the human race by preserving those unfit. His ideas gave some during this period a scientific reason for their racial intolerance. Andrew Carnegie believed the complete opposite. In his article “Wealth,” he argued that the wealthy had a responsibility given to them by God to carry out projects of civic philanthropy for the benefit of society as a whole. In other words, he believed that the rich should help the poor for the good of society. He himself practiced this belief by distributing $350 million of his fortune to support the building of libraries, universities, and various public institutions. So, …show more content…
He believed that civilization was not ruled by natural selection, but by human intelligence, and that human intelligence had the ability to shape society as it wished. He also believed that an active government engaged positive planning, which was societies best hope. Ward and Carnegie both believed in helping the poor, while Sumner believed helping them would weaken the society. Henry George believed that poverty was a side-effect of progress that was inevitable. He published a book in 1879 called “Progress and Poverty” that pushed readers to look more critically at the laissez-faire economics and its effects. His solution to poverty was to put a single tax on the land. Edward Bellamy rivaled Henry George. He wrote “Looking Backward,” which described the experiences of a man who went into a hypnotic sleep in 1887 and awoke in 2000, where he found a new social order. The society had formed through peace and evolution, and all of the trusts of the 1800's combined to form one government controlled trust, which distributed the abundance of the industrial economy equally among all
David K. Shipler in his essay At the Edge of Poverty talks about the forgotten America. He tries to make the readers feel how hard is to live at the edge of poverty in America. Shipler states “Poverty, then, does not lend itself to easy definition” (252). He lays emphasis on the fact that there is no single universal definition of poverty. In fact poverty is a widespread concept with different dimensions; every person, country or culture has its own definition for poverty and its own definition of a comfortable life.
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
Also, they both understand the importance of the competition of man and how it affects wealth and poverty. The reasoning that can attribute to their similarities and differences is their profession. Carnegie is a renowned industrialist known for his steel industry. Being an industrialist he understands the importance of contribution to society which is why he propagates the significance of the wealthy helping the poor. On the other hand, Sumner was a “professor of political economy at Yale University” (textbook, 488), and his profession correlates to why he advocates the idea that social darwinism can positively affect a capitalist
Andrew Carnegie and his philanthropy made him a hero because he helped more people than harm in the long run, by this I mean he helped other countries. He also sets a great example to everyone that helping others or someone is not something you need to wait to do when you are no longer living. If someone needed help and even a stable person had the choice to help but until they are no longer alive has little meaning. Perhaps it would be too late when the person isn’t around anymore. Its about what someone can do to help when they are around, it is about what a person can do in the time of need even if it is not much but a little of anything can go a long way. In (Doc C) there is a list of amounts of money that Carnegie has donated to various places which in total he has donated well over $271m but aside from that his corporation is giving out about $100m a year, most of it to education (Doc C)
The rags-to-riches story is always a classical and inspirational tale that tries to touch our hearts. These stories seeks to arouse the warm, intrinsic emotions that all humans get when they proudly achieve a long-term goal. Andrew Carnegie’s life is the exception. Andrew Carnegie was an industrialist who guided the expansion of the American steel industry in the 1800s. During this period, the United States was a demanding country for steel to use in the rail roads. Andrew Carnegie was not a hero but a heartless capitalist because he sabotaged his competitors in the steel industry, applied his belief that “(competition) insures the survival of the fittest in every department” into social standards, and, maintained his employees in unfair working
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.
Leaders such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Ford were all philanthropic and gave away their money to those in need. For instance, Andrew Carnegie had given a total of over $350 million in his lifetime and had centered his philanthropy on education and the quest for world peace. Carnegie built libraries mainly because he wanted to promote self-education and that he wanted everyone to have the access to books. He founded Carnegie University. He had always thought that “The rich have a moral obligation to give away their fortunes.” John D. Rockefeller donated over $550 million in his lifetime. Rockefeller built the University of Chicago and then founded Rockefeller University. The Rockefeller Foundation was his last charitable foundation and he had such an abundant amount of money that the foundation is still working “to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.” J.P. Morgan was an equally giving philanthropist after he retired from banking. He had become the president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art while he was also a trustee (lead donor, vice president, treasurer, and finance committee chairman). His love for the natural sciences gave way to the American Museum of Natural History. Morgan was also a part of the Episcopal Church which he had devoted a great deal of time to. Henry Ford
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
In the end, he gave away about 90% of his own money to various causes. He also preached to others to do the same as in giving money for education and sciences.The problem, however, was that there was such a contrast between the rich and the poor. By this he was referring to the inequalities in rights, hereditary powers, and such things. He also felt we should have a continuum of forward progress, i.e.
ownership participations. This was enough to make them millionaires in their own right. He also gave back by funding over 2,500 libraries throughout America. Carnegie managed to give away 90 percent of his wealth before he died. He was able to make sure that the people around him were happy financially so that they could all work happily and achieve success together.
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.
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.
Andrew Carnegie was born in 1835 in Dumferline, Scotland. His family was not very wealthy, his parents worked small jobs and the income was low. Carnegie moved to the U.S in 1848 to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There he worked with his father tweleve hour days for six days of the week in a cotton factory and made $1.20 a week. Shortly after, he had a 2nd job as an assistant for his city's telegraph service. Since he was working most of the time he did not get to attend school. When the Civil War came, Carnegie worked on the railroads. He took the job working on the Pennsylvania Railroad. After the Civil War, there became a high demand for iron, and Carnegie had a large interest in steel and took a job at Keystone Bridge Project. Over three