Summary Of William Graham Sumner's Social Classes Owe To Each Other '

William Graham Sumner’s writing was unique in the sense that it was written during the era where Social Darwinism was becoming a trend. In “What Social Classes Owe to Each Other,” Sumner is basically saying that all men have a chance to make something out of themselves, but it just will not work out for everyone. If the opportunity presents itself, man should take his chance although it may not always guarantee success. He argues in his writing that social inequality is inevitable because it is the result of the law of nature. “These classes are sometimes discontented, and sometimes not. Sometimes they are discontented and envious. They do not take their achievements as a fair measure of their rights. They do not blame themselves or their parents …show more content…
“It is quite obvious that the ethics of none of us are clearly defined…formerly when it was believed that poverty was synonymous with vice and laziness, and that the prosperous man was the righteous man, charity was administered harshly with a good conscience; for the charitable agent really blamed the individual for his poverty…” (Addams, 1902). Unlike Sumner, Addams believes that it does not matter from what social class the individual is from, society requires more than taking care of one-self and families; it is about the social obligation of helping each other. In other words, just like in Sumner’s writing; Addams also believes that such opinions of poverty levels create the different social classes that separates the wealthy from the poor. Therefore, those individuals in the “rich class” can advance logically, materially, and industrially without any problems; while those individuals in the “poor class” are thought to never be able to move ahead and become successful because of their own …show more content…
Addams criticizes people that are well-off in her writings. “The neighborhood understands the selfish rich people who stay in their own part of town, where all their associates have shoes and other things. Such people don't bother themselves about the poor; they are like the rich landlords of the neighborhood experience” (Addams, 1902). Although charity is good, it does not bring progress to society’s social ethics. Charities do not care how poor an individual is or who needs more help. A charity visitor’s job is to make a decision based on an industrial side and not on the charms and qualities of the people. “…they must work and be self-supporting, that the most dangerous of all situations is idleness, that seeking one's own pleasure, while ignoring claims and responsibilities, is the most ignoble of actions…” (Addams,