Beginning as a poor immigrant, Carnegie wanted to support the lower and uneducated class: he knew how it felt to have an ambiguous and undetermined future. In "The Gospel of Wealth" Carnegie said,
It promotes a quick economic development. In this type of economic system, both the public and private sectors can operate equally, which means that economic development will be quicker. This is especially true considering that economic resources will be utilized efficiently. Also, depletion of resources will be slowed down.
Andrew Carnegie was the one who wrote the Gospel of Wealth and it was a positive idea for the people who are not wealthy. Carnegie says that the upper class has a responsibility to address the issues of the wealth inequality. In the Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie stated that the wealthy class can be a better state than the government or state. Carnegie also states that the wealthy should dispense wealth and it should be a way that does not promote drunkenness. Carnegie argues that there are two types of wealthy people.
Likewise, many wealthy people, including big business leaders, came to realize that it was their role in society was to give back. Due to all the negative responses, people such as Andrew Carnegie were huge philanthropists . They stated that because they were wealthy and were better inclined than most, they should be willing to help those at the bottom. Andrew Carnegie’s, Gospel of Wealth, explicitly stated how the wealthy have a moral obligation to give back (Outside Evidence). Other major responses to changes and the impact of big business were responses from the government.
Carnegie donated money to establish ($350 million worth) libraries, schools, universities, and pension funds for his employees. James J. Hill provided seed, grain, and cattle to farmers during the Great Depression. (Hook Exercise). These entrepreneurs promoted inventions that enhanced the way we live in the developing technological era. When people were in need, these captains of industry were there to save the day, sharing their money like it was no big deal; only it really was to the ones who needed
This caused unrest among the populace (Brinkley 477). In contrast, the wealthy viewed industrialization very positively (Brinkley 472-473). Andrew Carnegie, one of these millionaires, had a singular view on wealth, and his philosophy both stemmed from and influenced his actions during his life. Carnegie’s view of rampant capitalism and the class separation it caused was radically different from most the population.
“The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” This is a famous quote from Carnegie, expressing his attitude towards wealth. Back in Carnegie’s time, property was an issue to the majority of people and thus was considered important; however, when Galbraith wrote his essay, poverty became a minor social issue and received less political attention. Their different historical background and perspective result in different opinions on wealth and poverty. Galbraith would criticize Carnegie’s idea of the Law of Competition, ways to aid, and responsibility and ability of helping the poor.
One of the many Gospel of Wealth advocates was Andrew Carnegie, 1835-1919, who was an industrialist who emigrated from Scotland to American in 1848 (Wall, ANBO). Carnegie’s “Wealth” written in 1889
Singer attempts to close this gap with the age old question of ‘why don’t we give the riches’ money to the poor’. The essence of Singer’s argument is obviously end world poverty. Probably the strongest point made in Singer’s argument is the involvement of the whole world. By taking this money from those across the world eliminates the opportunity for indifference. To stand with indifference is to stand with the oppressor.
He believed that if the wealthy don't give back some of their profits to the community, they are living a dishonorable life, and although I didn't necessarily agree with this radical viewpoint at first, I now am a firm believer in Carnegie's argument about wealth.
In this paper, I argue that Singer’s strong principle of sacrifice is flawed due to its over -demandingness. Singer denotes that as affluent individuals, we have a moral obligation to sacrifice up to the point of comparable moral significance to help those in absolute poverty. This essay will argue against Singer’s strong principle as it is psychologically too strong of an argument to be morally obliging. Singer’s argument exhorts us to give based on the controversial principle of comparable moral significance, to donate any income beyond that which is marginally necessary. Singer justifies this based on the knowledge that the suffering of a poor person should be no less significant to that of an affluent one (Singer, 1972).
In one circumstance, we may feel the need to give to those who are poor to keep them from getting in our personal space; and in other circumstances we feel that we give to others out of the kindness of our heart. I completely agree with Ascher and her views on compassion, because I have been in similar situation where I have questioned why people give money, and whether they give with a whole heart or out of necessity. Furthermore, this essay can teach us plenty of lessons that can be utilized throughout our lives so we can teach others and make them aware of the need to be more
Andrew Carnegie makes it clear that people in society with wealth should help those who deserve the financial help. If those in need of help put in their effort, then why shouldn’t they be helped by those who don’t need it? In the Life of the Average Coal Miner, the harsh conditions that children faced is revealed. Children would work for hours in a crucial and dangerous environment and be rewarded with very little money that did not equal to the amount of work they put in. It is unfair to those who worked in the conditions in the Life of the Average Coal Miner.
His business practices also reflected this level of lack of concern for other people that later transformed into regret and attempts at redressing his wrongs. First-hand observers of his factories, specifically Hamlin Garland, said the noises produced by the machines were as loud and frightening as a lion’s roar and that the entire factory was filled with an awful stench, furthermore, the workers were likened to men going to war for the sake of their wives and children while only receiving a mere 14 cents an hour. Originally when the union rejected Carnegie’s attempt at lowering of wages, Carnegie greeted them sympathetically and amacibly receiving exactly what he wanted, the unions were silenced and he was viewed as a benevolent employer. Making attempts to be remembered as this person, he saw it necessary to use his money for the public good which would later be outlined in his book, the Gospel of Wealth. The preservation of this public image was successful, but behind the scenes, Carnegie was less sympathetic towards his employees and their
Andrew Carnegie could have let his employees keep their wages and worry about donations later. Taking money away to invest it somewhere else is not helping, because the people
