The concepts of poverty and wealth only have meaning relative to each other. While poverty can’t be eliminated without wealth becoming meaningless, the vast difference in living conditions between the wealthy and poor must be addressed. Andrew Carnegie, wealthy industrialist, and Peter Singer, moral philosopher, both argue that philanthropy should improve the living conditions of the poor. However, their approaches to philanthropy are vastly different, and both have inherent flaws. Singer’s philosophy that everyone has a duty to give away all their excess wealth until the point of “marginal utility” also removes the wealth incentive that drives societal productivity. On the other hand, Carnegie’s paternalistic policy of educating the poor to …show more content…
Philanthropy should aid the growth of civilization by providing the poor with the living conditions and resources necessary to become productive and pursue a better life.
Singer’s belief that everyone should give away all excess wealth to eliminate as much suffering as possible conflicts with the idea of competition and, therefore, reduces the productivity of human civilization. Peter Singer, a professor of moral philosophy, stated in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that it is everyone’s duty to participate in philanthropy since it is morally wrong to not help someone who is suffering. Singer thoroughly explained the details of the “duty” of philanthropy: “we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility - that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” If this philosophy is followed, and the poor beneficiary experienced the same level of comfort as the wealthy benefactor, then what incentive would the beneficiary have for
…show more content…
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
Throughout his essay, Singer argues that we must reject the common sense view of giving to charity. The common sense view of giving to charity is one that is supererogatory; it is not obligated for us
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
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.
This statement is true, but the money that sustained the philanthropic ways of the Industrialists was obtained in a way exemplify the qualities of a Robber Baron. A list of Rockefeller's major donations added up to about $500,000,000. While this money went charities and hospitals, the money was made from unethical business practices and the undermining of employees. The Saturday Globe’s political cartoon of Carnegie shows him cutting wages and giving away libraries and money. Industrialists took money that went from their workers away to practice philanthropy. The money might have gone to great causes, but the way it was obtained is characteristic of Robber Barons. Andrew Carnegie's essay, “The Gospel of Wealth” he describes the role of the wealthy in the community. Carnegie class the millionaire a “trust for the poor” and states that the wealthy know how to best invest n the community. This role taken on by Carnegie and other wealthy Americans of the late 19th century is reminiscent of that of an oligarchy, where a small group has control of the community. The oligarchical position of the wealthy in Carnegie's essay is against the American values of freedom and individuality, and very discriminatory towards the
Singer continues by stating “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so.
The Gospel of Wealth is primarily about the dispersion of wealth and the responsibilities of those who have it. Carnegie thinks that inheritance is detrimental to society because it does not do any good for the inheritor or the community. Inheritance promotes laziness and the lack of a good work ethic does not teach the young sons of wealthy men to make money for themselves or help those in community they live in. Carnegie believes that charity is also bad and instead of handouts money should be given to those in a position to help the needy help themselves to be better citizens. It is the responsibility of the wealthy to use their surplus earnings to start foundations for open institutions that will benefit everyone. Men who only leave their money to the public after they are dead which makes it appear to say that if they could take the money with them they would. For this reason Carnegie is in support of Death taxes to encourage men to spend and use their money during their life. Carnegie says in his essay that a definite separation of the classes is productive for society and is very natural. If the classes were to become equal it would be a forced and change thus being revolution and not evolution...
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Saint Augustine once said, “Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others.” (Augustine). Augustine's belief that it is the duty of the individual to assist those less fortunate than themselves is expressed in the essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. Singer shares his conviction that those living in luxury should support those struggling to survive in poverty. Singer adopts the persona of a sage utilitarian philosopher who judges the morality of actions based on the consequences that are wrought by them. Singer utilizes powerful pathos, rhetorical questions, ethos, and a bold tone which contributes to his purpose of persuading his intended audience of American consumers to live only on necessity rather than luxury as well as to donate their discretionary income to the impoverished.
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
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.
The writer behind “Singers Solution to World Poverty” advocates that U.S. citizens give away the majority of their dispensable income in order to end global suffering. Peter Singer makes numerous assumptions within his proposal about world poverty, and they are founded on the principle that Americans spend too much money on items and services that they do not need.
In his article, the author Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to encourage people to reevaluate his or her ability to contribute to the underprivileged people of the world. Singer is addressing this article to any person with the ability to donate. The author makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. Additionally, in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author explain that we have a duty to give, but he is not stating whether it is a duty of justice in Narveson’s sense. He is not stating if would be morally correct for anyone to force us or impose to us to give to the needy. This author is trying to persuade or convince people to give voluntarily. The author is not enforcing to do something, this is contrary to Narveson’s position “enforced fee”. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” addresses the urgency for a more generous world. Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The main purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.
Philanthropy, or the act of private and voluntary giving, has been a familiar term since it first entered the English language in the seventeenth century. Translated from the Latin term “philanthropia” or “love of mankind,” philanthropy permeates many social spheres and serves several social purposes including charity, humanitarianism, religious morality and even manipulation for social control.