Another famous philosopher in support with my idea of the good life is Jean Paul Sartre, he spends the majority of his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, expressing his disapproval of the generalization of humans. Each man or woman is their own person and contains the ability to choose his or her values. He believes the way of living is for each individual to choose, and that any person has the right to change their job, where they live or even their way of living. Sartre looks upon humans as intelligent beings, able to make rash choices and take responsible for their actions. He believes the main problem behind people today is that they hide from the truth, preventing them the ability to make well calculated decisions.
Sartre’s teaching
…show more content…
Freud believes the purpose of life is the pleasure principle, that the satisfaction of instinct spells happiness for us (p.28). His idea is for mankind to come together in unity, his idea is for a Utopian world such as Huxley describes in Brave New World. Love one’s neighbor as oneself, a famous quote from our Bible, Freud disregards as counter to human nature. Instead Freud concedes that guilt is the ruling power over humans, not guilt of misguided actions but rather fear of authority or the super ego. He believes people should follow their instincts, he does not believe humans are conscious of their decisions and the affects. He warrants the use of drugs because they follow along with his pleasure principle. To my dismay much of Freud’s teaching can be seen in today’s world. Gone are the ways of the Bible, which defines love as a sacred act shared between one man and one woman. Instead today, love is about pleasure, casual sex outside marriage is just one example. Freud does not believe in religion, he relates humans to apes as Darwin’s theory of Evolution defines. He opposes Sartre’s view, by saying we are not in control of our actions and cannot take responsibility of our …show more content…
His main two ideas behind his essay, Wealth are Social Darwinism and Utilitarianism. In Carneige’s time, the world was at a difficult time, it was on the verge of industrial revolution. My main issue with Carneige’s proposal is his stance on individuality, he opposes Thoreau’s belief entirely on each person is their own person. “While the law may be hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it ensures survival of the fittest in every department.” (p.226)
One of his concerns was the gap between rich and poor and that the tension would lead to violence. He proposes that an inheritance tax be placed on the rich, to administer the wealth over the community. Following along his Utilitarian belief, the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. I feel Carneige contradicts himself on the occasion of discussing Social Darwinism and Utilitarianism, he talks about the survival of the fittest and personal advancement but also believes in the greatest happiness of the greatest number of
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
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute to the idea of inequality and how it is not likely for the poor to be of equal status with the wealthy. Furthermore, Carnegie views wealth and poverty as a reciprocative relation. He does not necessarily state that the wealthy and poor are equal, but he believes that the wealthy are the ones who “should use their wisdom, experiences, and wealth as stewards for the poor” (textbook, 489). Ultimately, the consequences of
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.
Social Darwinism and The Gospel of Wealth were two late 19th century ideas that helped shape America’s views on social, economic, and political issues. The former applied the theory of natural selection to sociology and politics while the latter outlined a way for the country’s newly minted rich to redistribute their surplus wealth to the needy. Both concepts offer insight into the 1877-1900 period in American history known as the Gilded Age.
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
The main problem encountered by the Gilded Age era was the administration of wealth, at least according to Andrew Carnegie. In his piece, “The Gospel of Wealth,” he proposed a solution for the abuse of wealth, and assigned duties to the rich in regards to how they should handle the responsibilities brought on by excessive wealth. However, he also addressed the concerns of the working class. He stressed the welfares of individualism and argued that it was: contemporary and innovative, enabled the affordability of luxuries to all classes, and thus ensured that money controlled by a few people would be more effective for the prosperity of the economy than it would to equally distribute national wealth amongst citizens. Carnegie intended to clarify the reasons why the newly industrialized economy and the new administration of wealth were ultimately for the benefit and harmony of both rich and poor.
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.
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...
The three philosophers that will be examined are Adam Ferguson, David Hume, and Adam Smith. By assessing their thoughts on the subject of wealth, conclusions can be developed for the questions presented. Each thinker has an answer to these questions, yet there may be some overlap within the thoughts of these men since they were peers writing during the same period. The first philosopher to be discussed is Adam Ferguson along with his work An Essay on the History of Civil Liberty. Ferguson provides his understanding of wealth and its effects in the section of his work titled “Of Population and Wealth.” He does not explicitly define wealth such as in the form of a dictionary entry, rather must be deduced. Ferguson’s central claim in this section is that there is a connection between a growing population and the growing wealth and prosperity of a nation.
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
In Sigmund Freud's observation, humans are mainly ambitious by sexual and aggressive instincts, and search for boundless enjoyment of all needs. However, the continuous pursuit of gratification driven by the identification, or unconscious, directly conflicts with our society as the uncontrolled happiness. Sigmund Freud believed that inherent sexual and aggressive power prevented from being expressed would cause our "society to be miserable and the forfeiture of contentment." Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic view of personality theory is based on the perception that greatly of human behavior is determi...
Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory was based on the belief that human personality is made up of three components: the id, ego and superego. These three components are arranged in a hierarchy order with the id at the basal end, the ego in the middle and the super ego at the pinnacle. The id at the base, seeks instantaneous pleasure and fulfillment, driven by the pleasure principle. The id wants what it wants, when it wants it regardless of whether or not it is possible to satisfy that particular want or need. The presence or logic of reality or societal behavior has no effect on the id. For example, if an infant is thirsty and sees a bottle of water, he will take the bottle and drink even if it belonged to someone else and he did not have permission to drink, all that matters is that the needs have been met.
Throughout Freud’s time, he came up with many different theories. One of his theories was Life and Death Instincts. This theory evolved throughout his life and work. He believed that these drives were responsible for much of behavior. He eventually came to believe that these life instincts alone couldn’t explain all human behavior. Freud then determined that all instincts fall into one of 2 major classes: the life instincts or the death instincts. Life instincts deal with basic survival, reproduction, and pleasure. Death instincts are apparent after people experience a traumatic event and they often reenact the experience. In Freud’s view, self-destructive behavior is an expression of the energy that is created by the death instincts.