Do Kuyper and Conwell agree or disagree on what poverty is? Kuyper and Conwell seem to disagree at first. Kuyper states that the people who seem to have nothing are the impoverished. Poverty for him means that people do not have wealth and that it is man’s nature that is the root cause of this. It is man creating these social classes and people are put into them and thus the only way to stop this is Christianity. Whereas, Conwell sees knowledge is power. If a man knows where and how to attain great wealth, then that is how he will never become impoverished. Yet, these two viewpoints match up. Kuyper blames the government for the impoverished. He wants a world where everybody has the same amount of wealth, a socialist view. But Conwell’s idea is that if every person uses their knowledge, they too can become wealthy. They just are not using the tools they already have. …show more content…
Conwell puts having wealth into perspective. Conwell says that gaining wealth is a good thing. If a person has the opportunity to get wealthy, it can be there way to help the people in poverty. Money is not sinful until a person decide what they want to do with it. If that person decides to help others with his money, then having great wealth is a good thing. But on the opposing side, if a man keeps all of his money to himself, then that is a sin. God gave that person the opportunity to have wealth and they were selfish with God’s blessing. That money should go to people who need it. God could have given the opportunities to one of the less fortunate people, then how would the person who was selfish feel? Sure, money may feel great on this earth, but does God care about how much wealth we attain in our life, or does he care about how we used our wealth? If a man shows another man how to attain wealth instead of just giving the other man wealth, then he will be able to live on his
One of the best-known philanthropists was the American industrialist Andrew Carnegie, who devoted the latter part of his life to giving away most of the huge fortune he had amassed in the steel industry. Following the principles laid down in his essay “Gospel of Wealth” , Carnegie returned over $300 million to society, primarily through foundations and trusts. Debs believed that wealth is predestined and that god gave him his wealth. Although different in ideas Carnegie perform what Eugene V. Debs believed in: the distribution of wealth.
In June 1889, Andrew Carnegie wrote an article known as, “The Gospel of Wealth,” or “Wealth,” which portrays the responsibility of philanthropy. In the article, Carnegie acknowledges the “three modes in which wealth can be disposed of, which are, “it can be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes… or, finally, it can be administered by its possessors during their lives…” Moreover, Carnegie believes a rich man shouldn’t leave a fortune to their families and men shouldn’t wait until death to donate money for public uses. In addition, Carnegie (1889) portrays that, the only mode for a rich man to use their fortune is, “to produce the most beneficial results for the community- the man of wealth thus becoming the … agent 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… The man who dies rich dies disgraced,” (doc 8). Nevertheless, Carnegie believes that a man of wealth should donate as much money as possible during his life to become much good in the world while living. This evidence helps explain why Andrew Carnegie was a hero because he acknowledges that a man of wealth should donate to those in need while living which makes Carnegie a courageous
That is not always true. It is true that that living in poverty and trying to make ends meet, and raising children at the same time can be tough, especially when you are a single working parent (Gladwell). The truth is that having money does not always make people good parents. Furthermore, Gladwell says that parents success sort of overwhelm their children. In fact, in some cases, parents have worked hard during their whole life, and become successful because they “learned the long and hard way about the value of money and the meaning of work and the joy and fulfillment that come from making your way into the world.” Sadly, that is a lesson hard to teach when having
In conclusion, “The Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie has some interesting ideas and a very philanthropical outlook, however this is not a reasonable way to solve economic issues and cross social lines. It allows the poor to receive hand outs and takes away the incentive to work. Even a man born into wealth can squander it and be left with nothing if he is not a hard
The story from the Bible is not intended to persuade people to stay poor but to uphold the loyalty to God. (The Straight Dope) However, it can be reflected in a different perspective that the reluctance to give up the great possessions exist from the early history of human and all wealth except for labor-made possession is kind of theft because it more or less deprive manual workers of labor and free time which can be used to produce wealth. Moreover, the distribution of wealth is unfair from the emergency of surplus property. Therefore, there is an assumption that property is a kind of theft. (Proudhon, 1840)
society poverty has various definitions that lack the true picture that poverty depicts. Dictionary defines poverty as “the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money on material possessions.” In other words poverty is a situation where a person fail to earn a sufficient amount of income to purchase basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothes etc. In reality, poverty is much more than the capital resources. According to Laster Brown explained poverty as “the world without orders’ and further emphasized that “unfortunately it is a human condition. It is despair, grief and pain.” However, the issue of poverty and how we deal with it could differ among people. This idea is reflected in Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality” essay and the opposing essay written by John Arthur in “World hunger and moral obligation: the case against Singer.” Peter Singer raises the question of poverty and our obligations toward it in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. In the essay, Singer addresses the question of what obligations we have toward those ar...
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
Poverty is not wished upon, but area such the least industrialized nations there is more of it. There are many ways to analyze poverty. Functionalists believe that poverty is good for the economic and the workforce. Symbolic interactionists believe that it has a purpose but for what reason. While, conflict theorists believe that the system of poverty is flawed. That statement is more believable because calling someone poor is just using a label. It does not look at their family history, medical history or even their education.
rich to be prosperous, and he would rather be poor like Jesus then be rich,
Andrew Carnegie and Walter Rauschenbusch represent two opposing sides in the integration of Christian faith into society. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth stated that the rich must reinvest their earnings into social programs that would benefit the poor without providing excess money that would enable them to spend frivolously on items that would not actually improve their overall situation. In contrast, Rauschenbusch was more concerned with the physical well being of those in lower classes. Both men wrote their works as a moral response to the rapid changes industrialization produced in their economies; similarly, today’s economy is rapidly changing as a result of technological development. However, morality has struggled to keep up with the exponential advancement in technology, leaving people with little
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.
It has been a long time since the first time I heard the passage in my business classes. Of course like many other student with business degree, money was my reason to pick the major. But with the time I learned that I was doing everything for the wrong reasons. When I first read 1 timothy 6:6-10 on my own, I though that making money was wrong. But I learned that as long as we do it for the right reasons as helping others or giving a percentage of what we make to our church. Money is not what is driving us to an evil world but the “love” for that money. What we do with the money we make, and how we earn that money. Christians should be content with the home, clothing, and food they have in life. People who love money are selfish and always ask for more but are never happy. Desire for money will cause people to find themselves in misery in this life, and it will cause them to get lost from the faith in Jesus Christ and end up in eternal destruction in hell.
People can argue about whether poverty is more of a state of mind, choice, or something that people are forced to live in. As stated on the online dictionary, poverty is defined as the state or condition of having little or no money or goods, and is the condition of being poor. Poverty can be found in an individual household or in individual communities, societies, etc. Wherever poverty is found, the fact is that the people in it are struggling to keep money and goods for themselves or families. The questions that most people wonder are how these people in poverty will get out of the state and more like will they get out of being in the state. A more wandering question is whether people in poverty want to be in poverty to get more dependency
First Timothy 6:17-18 exhorts,"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share" (niv). Being entrusted with wealth carries great responsibility. If you believe God owns everything, isn 't your money really His money? He has entrusted the things of this earth to you, and He allows you usage during your lifetime, but He is still in control and the ultimate Owner. How, then, should you manage His
Poverty is in our own backyard. Poverty isn’t turning around a globe and looking toward third world countries for an example. Poverty is everywhere. Poverty is the children down the street who go to bed hungry each night filled only with emptiness. Poverty is my neighbor who had her heat shut off this past winter. However I believe that poverty is preventable.