Justification of this is seen in Document 3, as Andrew Carnegie writes, “The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmony.” Surely, a manipulative man would not believe in such fair distribution of wealth. Carnegie is also famous for large charitable donations, meaning his business methods were not enacted solely for his own benefit. This statement highlights Carnegie’s compassionate side and proves that he is not completely a “robber baron.” Similarly to Carnegie, Rockefeller’s compassionate side is also portrayed in Document 7.
Greed – the extreme, selfish desire to acquire what is beyond average necessities. Whether greed applies to wealth or power, mankind is prone to exemplify the cupidity. Humans may never become truly content with what they are given, allowing them to desire superfluous objects. The development of greed, as shown in repeated history, eventually leads to the ruination of characters, one particular character being Andrew Carnegie. Andrew Carnegie, the leader of the steel industry in the 19th century, epitomized the concept of greed by yearning for supplementary profits within his company; this greed greatly affected the lives of many, including Carnegie himself.
The captains of industry believed that the poor people were inferior to the rich people. The rich were superior because they had “wisdom, experience, and the ability to administer”. The duty of a rich person was to help out a poor person which was what was said in the Gospel of Wealth. The Gospel of Wealth is about how the rich person's responsibility is philanthropy. Carnegie believes in charity work so he would donate to libraries, and universities and schools and etc.
At the end of the 19th Century, as the United States was experiencing rapid industrialization, a reconfiguration of the social order yielded opposing visions of social progress. Andrew Carnegie, wealthy businessman, and Jane Addams, founder of Chicago’s Hull House, put forward different methods to achieve such progress, where Addams focuses on creating social capital in a seemingly horizontal manner while Carnegie advocates for a top-down approach. While both of them seem to reap a sense of purpose from their attempts to improve the nation, their approaches vary depending on their vision of the composition of the population they want to uplift. First, Carnegie and Addams’ desire to improve society is partly self-serving. For Carnegie, improving society is the role of the wealthy man who, “animated by Christ’s spirit” (“Wealth”), can administer wealth for the community better than it could have for itself (“Wealth”).
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 thinks it is better to build public institutions than give charity to the poor because the poor need to have the “desire to improve” and find help in these public institutions. (Carnegie 30). He believes that rather wealthy “Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives” can find the proper use for their money, which is to help the community. (Carnegie 29). By just giving money to the poor the wealthy are doing all their work and instead the poor should find the assistance they need to improve their lives.
There had to be a way to keep the industry growing, with the needs for education, as well as materials for farming and for the use of new inventions in technology. The captains of industry were very capable in providing for these needs. In Document C, Wealth, Andrew Carnegie describes what the man of wealth was responsible for: “To produce the most beneficial results for the community- Bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.” The conditions of the lower class at the time gave these men a leading role for priorities, which they were successful with.
Carnegie, who was a believer of Social darwinism, which was a belief held by many that stated that the rich were rich and the poor were poor due to natural selection in society. This was the basis of many people who promoted a laissez faire style of economy. He believed if you worked hard, you could be successful. He believed that a man of wealth should set modest examples and help those in need (DOC E) Carnegie donated more than 150 billion of dollars for libraries, colleges and concert halls. The high population density of the early twentieth century put pressure on fragile infrastructures and demanded insight from urban planners and politicians.
Andrew Carnegie was a hero in some people 's eyes , not so much in others . That’s why everyone has their own opinion. In this essay you will read one reason someone might think he’s a hero , and two reasons why he is not a hero for the rest of the people. What that means is that this paper mostly leans on that Andrew Carnegie is not a hero and you will read why . Andrew Carnegie was a very wealthy man.
More importantly, Galbraith holds a different view on the duty and ability to aid from Carnegie. Carnegie supports policies which “induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have the view” (Carnegie 490). He encourages rich people to distribute his wealth to help the poor during their lifetimes, which shows that it is the rich’s responsibility to administrate wealth in a society. More than duty, Carnegie believes that only the rich has the ability to efficiently administrate wealth. He condemns the way of distributing wealth after the rich man is dead since it is not efficient in that “it requires the exercise of not less ability than that which acquired the wealth
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
The saying that history repeats itself has been proven to be true time and time again. History seems to be doomed to repeat itself as if lessons were never learned from past mistakes. The Gilded Age is a unique period in American history that is undoubtedly repeating itself in the modern day. Corruption, unprecedented immigration, and the massing of wealth by the top 1% of the population are just a few of the things that characterize this period of American history. The same issues that plagued America over 100 years ago are re-emerging in todays’ society leading scholars to say that America has arrived in “The Second Gilded Age”.
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.
During the late 19th century, there was a growth in industrialization. This brought new opportunities for the poor and the rich. For example, Carnegie helped build the steel industry in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, which made him one of the richest man in the world. As Carnegie gained more wealth, he questioned who money should be given to. Carnegie was both a Robber Baron and a Captain of Industry.
A hero is someone who does a meaningful deed, worthy of remembrance and selflessly. Andrew Carnegie was a wealthy man. After he sold his steel company in 1900, he devoted the rest of his life giving money to charity. Did Andrew Carnegie’s generosity make him a hero? Andrew Carnegie was not a hero.
