The Gospel of Wealth Reality In Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” he outlines what the rich man’s responsibilities to the public is regarding his wealth. Andrew Carnegie was one of his times wealthiest men and wrote this in 1889. He states that, “Our duty is with what is practicable now-with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably accomplish is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production of the good fruit under existing circumstances (Carnegie 23-24).” In his writing he talks about the best way to dispose of the wealth one has acquired. The remainder of this paper will address the …show more content…
This is a very prideful way to view society. I believe that if a man works hard, he should be rewarded and can accumulate wealth that way. Not given money from the rich who worked hard to get wealth. 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
Carnegie understands the flaws with the law of competition, stating that their is often friction between the rich and the poor. He acknowledges that the law may be hard for individuals, but in the long run it will benefit the race. He continues that the competition of industrial and commercial are more than beneficial but will allow progress of society. He suggests that the wealthy can use their wisdom and experience and help set an example for those without guidance. Carnegie endorses the wealthy allow their surplus of wealth to be given to improve their community. He states that the riches passing through the hands of a few can be more beneficial than if the wealth distributed and was given directly to the
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.
He explained that they had the responsibility to be philanthropic and donate their wealth to benefit society while they are living. If the wealthy keep their riches until they are dead, then it simply implies that the deceased would have wanted to bring the money with them if it were possible. Carnegie also explained that family members should not leave each other inheritances. By leaving them with a large amount of money, it gives family members no motivation to work hard; becoming lackadaisical. He wrote how one should contribute to society through charity, by donating towards a physical cause; and not by giving money to a homeless person.
Singer’s approach to philanthropy addresses the disparity between the wealth and poor as created by industrialization, a growth in civilization. However, his approach slows future growth in civilization. Carnegie’s massive fortunes and his workers’ relative poverty are a testament of the effects of industrialization and his philosophy aimed to bring those from poverty into wealth. However, he failed to address some fundamental needs that the poor have in his approach to philanthropy. Growth in civilization initially led to industrialization and the creation of the extreme disparities of wealth addressed in Carnegie and Singer’s philosophies on philanthropy. As civilization continues to progress and technology automates more fields of labor, the disparities of wealth will continue to grow. A better and more universally accepted approach to philanthropy is critical to the future welfare of the human
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.
Even before the beginning of the twentieth century, the debate between socialists and capitalists has raged. In The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, he portrays capitalism as the cause of all evils in society. Sinclair shows the horrors of capitalism. In The Gospel of Wealth, by Andrew Carnegie, he portrays capitalism as a system of opportunity. However, both Carnegie and Sinclair had something to gain from their writings; both men had an agenda. Capitalism and socialism both have advantages and pitfalls; when capitalism is adopted using certain socialist ideals, a truly prosperous society exists.
Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth. 391st ed. Vol. 148. N.p.: North American Review, 1889. Print.
This wealth comes from the strength of our industry. “If thou does not sow, thou does not reap”(Hofstadter Recon.-Present Day pg.79). Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan are the epitome of this statement.
Much has been said about the role of greed in a capitalist, free market economy. Some believe that greed fuels the economy. Others say that it undermines the value system that drives the economy. Adam Smith said that, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest" (Smith, 1776: 26-27). This statement explains that it is the self-interest of individuals that causes people to trade. This trade pushes an economy in a forward progression, which creates a more profitable living situation for the individuals in the economy.
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
“A Millionaire in Blue Jeans?” One of the most valuable principles is found in the very first chapter. Our authors do a wonderful job at dispelling any delusions we have regarding what a Millionaire looks like. I had long assumed, like many others, that the Millionaires of America were the hyperconsumers and elaborate spenders. In fact, we learn that just the opposite is true. I came to understand that, “Wealth is not the same as income”. (The Millionaire Next Door, p. 1, Stanley & Danko) In many cases, income is not at the forefront of relevancy when determining whether someone will become wealthy. There are several factors involved, but ultimately, if a person spends their entire income, the number value of said income simply doesn’t matter. The old age adage regarding spending less than you make is of much more importance. In the Church, this is referred to as ‘living below our means’. We have often been counseled to exercise restraint regarding our spending habits, and have also been commanded to obtain a level of financially secure by building up our savings, staying out of debt, and living within our means. (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball, (2006), 11423) It seems rather silly that a large percentage of our population would be under the assumption that living a large lifestyle, along with the accumulation of fancy things, would somehow equate to wealth. After reading the book, I have come to understand that many of us have an extremely distorted relationship with money, in the assumption that money is to get and spend, while those who are authentic accumulators of wealth understand that money should be invested and stored up as a measure of safety and peace.
Heavy industrialization in the United States created a new economic reality in which “the poor enjoy[ed] what the rich could not before afford” by decreasing the labor and money needed to produce material goods (Carnegie). However, it also created problems for the poor in the form of pollution, moral deterioration, and lack of interest in work (Rauschenbusch). Despite the fact that both works focused on a Christian approach to interacting with the economy, their conclusions differed greatly, with Carnegie arguing for the rich to continue to accumulate and distribute wealth to public projects, and Rauschenbusch calling for the rich to redistribute directly to projects that would improve the daily health and moral well being of the poor. While the beliefs were inherently different, their importance was the same. It mattered less what actions the men perceived to be the most beneficial, because both were actively engaging the moral implications of technological advances and their effect on the economy, something that few modern economists
It is also believed that wealth should be non-existent. This is only possible if cl...
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.
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.