More handpicked essays just for you.
The philanthropy of andrew carnegie: did it make him a hero
The philanthropy of andrew carnegie: did it make him a hero
The philanthropy of andrew carnegie: did it make him a hero
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
Sumner believes that inequality is imperative in order to establish the different between the fittest and the unfittest. He believes that “we work and deny ourselves to get capital, just because, other things being equal, the man who has it is superior, for attaining all the ends of life, to the man who has it not” (Sumner, 38). Basically, this statement means that as long as people competitively work to earn money, there will always be the superiors and those who are not. Sumner considers inequality as benefit to the world and economy. He believes that “It is impossible that the man with capital and the man without capital should be equal” (Sumner, 38). On the other hand, Carnegie understands that there exists inequality, but he believes that the superior can cooperate with the inferior to gain equality. In fact, it the document he clarifies, “There remains…only one mode of using great fortunes…in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor−a reign of harmony” (Carnegie, 54). Carnegie does not particularly consider inequality a problem. He understands that in order for wealthy to facilitate the lives of the poor, there must be inequality to establish status, but he also discerns that by helping the poor they are given a chance to reach equality. In fact, Carnegie says, “Individualism will
To some Carnegie is an idol, to some he is a shrewd. Coming from the days to the riches, becoming a self-made and self-taught man who introduced the biggest steel industry of his time. He still gave his fortune to the society giving him the label of "captain of industry” and placing him into American
Gregory Mantsios presents himself as an expert in this essay because he states a lot of facts. The author uses stats, his own opinion, and my favorite thing that brought me in was the myths that he told the reality’s for later in the essay. Mantsios believes that no matter what social or economic class that you fall into, you have a fair chance at succeeding in life. I feel that the intended audience is the citizens of America or people in the workforce since they are the ones that have to deal with this situation. The thesis of this essay is “Perhaps, most importantly, the point that is missed is that inequality is persistent and structural-
Andrew Carnegie, was a strong-minded man who believed in equal distribution and different forms to manage wealth. One of the methods he suggested was to tax revenues to help out the public. He believed in successors enriching society by paying taxes and death taxes. Carnegie’s view did not surprise me because it was the only form people could not unequally distribute their wealth amongst the public, and the mediocre American economy. Therefore, taxations would lead to many more advances in the American economy and for public purposes.
Speaking of where that money, in document #10 we see a small cartoon post from The Saturday Globe, Utica, New York, July 9, 1892. At the bottom it conveys, “Forty Millionaire Carnegie in his Great Double Role” With this message, it displays Carnegie both giving away a Library to Pittsburgh and money to Scotland, and cutting wages from workers. This drawing signifies what he does with the money rather than paying his workers with that money. Looking at wages in document #7 helps to see how much a worker are paid in a chart, even though iron and steel workers look like they have decent wages(daily hrs. 10.67, daily wages 1.81), it was to many unfair wages. Compare this to Carnegie’s daily “wage” was ninety two grand! Confirming wages are unfair.
In a nutshell, it can be argued that in the event of serious economic developments, various people and groups held different views of what exactly a wealthy society should be. It is crystal clear that Andrew Carnegie and William Graham Sumner held same view on wealth accumulation whereas Henry George strongly advocated for policies that would enhance equality.
William Graham Sumner came from a hard working family. He grew up in the environment where he was taught to respect Protestant economic virtues. Hard work and efficiently utilizing money leads to the result in success. After reading, Illustration of Political Economy written by Harriet Marti he became aware of the wage fund doctrine, and other theories associated with that. His understanding of capital, labor, money and trade were based upon the book, Illustration of Political Economy. He published books like Earth hunger, The Absurd Effort to Make the World Over, The Forgotten Man, Folkways and others. His intellectual ideas were passed through the columns of popular journals and from the lecture platform, he waged a holy war against reformism, protectionism, socialism, and government interventionism.
Deep in the territory that is called South Africa, teenagers and young adults have a peculiar way to express their wealthy status. They like to organize large dance offs between rival groups where the side who has the most expensive and lavish things to destroy wins. Smashing brand new cell phones on any available surface is encouraged; dumping premium alcohol on the ground is something that should be done; and burning money is most definitely the cool thing to do. They like to walk around in their fancy designer clothing that could rival any celebrity on any tabloid and destroy stuff that they spent a pretty penny on. These people call themselves the Izikhothane. The extravagant, wasteful lifestyle of the Izikhothane people completely ignores
Andrew Carnegie, the “King of Steel”, the benevolent employer, the giant of industry, was among the greatest influences of the second industrial revolution. It is sometimes questioned whether Carnegie was the ruthless, sneaky steel tyrant some made him out to be, or the generous, benevolent education benefactor he appeared to be. I believe him to be a combination of both, but more so the great giant of industry.
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
Sumner persuaded many Americans to accept Social Darwinism, but not Addams. The attitude of allowing the fittest to survive and the rest to go under completely goes against Addams whole approach to social, political and economic problems. In the reading, “What Social Classes Owe to Each Other”, Sumner argued that social programs developed to help the poor worked against nature and weakened the hardworking individual of his expected reward. Sumner believed in natural selection and he blamed poverty on individuals who were too weak to be able to become wealthy. Sumner defended laissez-faire to the end. He believed that good qualities earned people wealth and because of that the government should not get involved to help the economy. In addition to Sumner and Addams differences, in the reading, Democracy and Social Ethics, Addams argued that providing education and opportunity was more significant than advocating morality. Sumner insisted that the wealthy are wealthy because they deserve to be. Sumner believed that good qualities earned people wealth. Addams argued that it was the responsibility of the middle class to help the lower class, however Sumner opposed that the poor were inherently
Carnegie opens his essay with the statement that there are three main ways most wealthy people use or distribute their money. First, some pass their money on to the next generation. Children...
In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could be built for the enjoyment of society.
Written in a collection of essays in 1883, Professor William Graham Sumner explains a system: Social Darwinism, involving the poor, the philanthropists and the main focus, the forgotten man. Sumner explains the forgotten man as someone practical, quiet and hard-working but also ignored in society. Sumner views society’s system as philanthropists giving money to the poor, and the forgotten man paying the taxes that come after. At first, Sumner described the poor as people with forced public attention, people who obtain the pity of philanthropists. He sees this as problematic because it prevents the forgotten man from getting a better living (greater capitalism). Then, Sumner introduces the idea that people should remember the forgotten man,
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.
Money can give people a lot opportunities and privilege. Financially privileged people have no trouble getting materialistic things such as big houses, expensive cars, and jewelry. Being privileged can also provide better scholastic education as well as respect. On the other hand, a lack of money, as a person might guess, limits opportunity and lower a person’s status on the privilege pole. In order for an underprivileged person to have all of those things, they have to work hard to get to get the luxuries of nice houses, cars, and jewelry. As far as education goes, the underprivileged might not go to the best schools but they get an education that will prove to be more valuable in life; they learn to earn respect, appreciate what they have and how to survive with just the necessities and what’s really important in life. So when a person looks at each group and tries to decided with one gets the most out of life, they will see that underprivileged individuals get so much more out of life than a person who came up in affluence and privilege.