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.
Part of a captain of industries duty were to make sure that whatever he does whether it is “trust funds in which he administered”, it would have to benefit the community (DOC 2). Andrew Carnegie believed in Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the belief of the “survival of the fittest.” You are rich because God is rewarding and you are poor because you aren’t working hard
Ulysses S. Grant (named Hiram Ulysses Grant) was born on April 27, 1822. Grant began his military career graduating Westpoint as an average student in 1843. Grant fought in the Mexican-American War along with Robert E. Lee, a man he would be facing on the battlefield nearly fifteen years later. Grant came to an early retirement in 1854 but after struggling monetarily in civilian life he rejoined the Union army in 1861. Grant was the most famous Union General in the Civil War.
Kai Sebastian English 10H Mrs. Denchfield 8/27/15 10H Summer Assignment: The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls 1.“‘We could live like this forever,’ I said. ‘I think we’re going to,’ she said.” (Walls 18) This is near the beginning of the books between the two siblings of the narrator (Jeannette Walls) and her older sister (Lori Walls) as they are lying underneath the stars on a clear night in the desert. The reason for these exchange of words was the fact they were on one of their dad’s
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.
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
“And thus came in the use of money, some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that by mutual consent men would take in exchange for the truly useful, but perishable supports of life” (S.V.47). Because money (which Locke sometimes substitutes with gold, diamonds, or silver), does not spoil, one can acquire an unlimited amount of wealth, therefore breaking the Law of Nature. Unlike the way that excess apples rot, no matter how much money one possesses, there is no way for it to go bad. It will generally have as much use today as it will tomorrow. This leads to the situation of wealth inequality, where some people possess a lot of money while others have very little.
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.
Frederick Buechner once said, “Compassion is sometimes the fatal capacity for feeling what it is like to live inside somebody else's skin.” Similarly, an author by the name of Barbara Lazear Ascher wrote an essay called “On Compassion,” in which she states that people learn about compassion when they experience hardships and begin to put oneself in another’s place. Along with the idea of compassion being learned, Ascher also tries to make us wonder what our motive is that leads us to being compassionate. Ascher tries to make us question why we feel the need to be compassionate towards others throughout her essay.
My idea of money was not far from that same thought. When you think of how many people have gained their wealth through selfish and corrupt ways, it is kind of hard to not have this thought process. Money can drive people to do things that they would never dream of doing. In his speech, Francisco d’Anconia speaks of how money demands our highest virtues. He talks about men who obtain their money through compulsion or by favors, instead of by consent or by hard work.
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
For instance, Carnegie presented his library named Carnegie Library, he considers this “the best kind of philanthropy” (Ernsberger). By this he indicates the correct way a wealthy individual should live,is by giving back to the community. On the contrary, Richard argues this as negative affect to the company due to the loss of income. Richard believes that Carnegie shouldn’t have spent his money on helping the community instead, he should have continued to invest it on the steel industry. Overall, Richard views Carnegie as “little capitalist who urged presidents to do right things in Philippines, Panama and international diplomacy [but] had never done the right or moral thing as a businessman,” (Ernsberger).
The wealthier one gets, it seems, the more one rationalizes their decisions and actions. The more one stains their morality little by little until they no longer need to choose what’s right and wrong but what benefits them. Whether it’s right or wrong is then irrelevant. From people to companies, wealth is the source of
Society don't care where the money comes from, because it makes a person seem successful. Whoever doesn't have much according to them, is a lazy and useless
