In “The Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegies, he highlights how it is the duty of the capitalist who has amassed great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those who are less fortunes. Carnegie proposes on three main ideas of how wealth should be properly administrated. Although Carnegie’s arguments can be looked at as a double edged sword. One edge showing Carnegie as an ideal example, while the other would show Carnegie as an egotistical and ruthless businessman who will slash their works pay, and run other business under some corruption use in order achieve what he desired. Due to the author’s elitist mentality towards the poor community, his use of sincerity fallacy on charity, and his confusing and contradicting aspect of individualism,
…show more content…
Carnegie describes, “the duty of the man of Wealth: to administer, using his judgment, the surplus revenues…for the, poorer brethren which he can do better than they “could for themselves” (493). Carnegie believed that the fact that a person was rich it showed that they were more fit than others. This meant that the rich men was the one who knew the most about how to prosper in society. According to Carnegie, he believed that the rich people should use their money and help the poor, but he did not think that the rich should just give their money away to the poor because they would not know how to use it. He praises that men like him who make all their money decides what the public should have because they know best, he states, “The community gets the benefit, but the wealthy administers it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself” (495). His beliefs were that the answer for the poor community well-being will only come from men like him. Carnegie evaluates through his own self how only the wealthiest person can only bring the best benefit for the poor because he makes it clears that he thinks he knows what it means to be poor. By using himself as an example to prove that those who are wealthy …show more content…
According to Carnegie, individualism is the revolution to the nation. Carnegie believes that by intensifying individualism it will be the reconciliation between poor and rich (491). However, he states that the surplus of wealth will be administrated by the hands of few: the rich (492). Carnegie’s view of individualism is act of oppressiveness. He targets the poor by making them believe that due to the act of individualism, it will benefit both the poor and rich but indeed it will be benefitting the rich because it asserts to them that they will be the only ones in control. Carnegie asserts, “The laws of accumulation should be left free; the law of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee; entrusted for a season with a part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far than it did, or would have done, of itself (495). By stating this, Carnegie contradicts him with him saying that individualism will reconcile poor and rich, but reality Carnegie views this as dictatorial act. Carnegies view of individualism in not seen as a freedom of action for the individuals instead it is view as a concentration of power. With his contradictory meanings of individualism, Carnegie’s argument is
Carnegie describes, “the duty of the man of Wealth: to administer, using his judgment, the surplus revenues…for the, poorer brethren which he can do better than they “could for themselves” (493). Carnegie believed that the fact that a person was rich it showed that they were more fit than others. This meant that the rich men was the one who knew the most about how to prosper in society. According to Carnegie, he believed that the rich people should use their money and help the poor, but he did not think that the rich should just give their money away to the poor because they would not know how to use it. He praises that men like him who make all their money decides what the public should have because they know best, he states, “The community gets the benefit, but the wealthy administers it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself” (495). His beliefs were that the answer for the poor community well-being will only come from men like him. Carnegie evaluates through his own self how only the wealthiest person can only bring the best benefit for the poor because he makes it clears that he thinks he knows what it means to be poor. By using himself as an example to prove that those who are wealthy …show more content…
According to Carnegie, individualism is the revolution to the nation. Carnegie believes that by intensifying individualism it will be the reconciliation between poor and rich (491). However, he states that the surplus of wealth will be administrated by the hands of few: the rich (492). Carnegie’s view of individualism is act of oppressiveness. He targets the poor by making them believe that due to the act of individualism, it will benefit both the poor and rich but indeed it will be benefitting the rich because it asserts to them that they will be the only ones in control. Carnegie asserts, “The laws of accumulation should be left free; the law of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee; entrusted for a season with a part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far than it did, or would have done, of itself (495). By stating this, Carnegie contradicts him with him saying that individualism will reconcile poor and rich, but reality Carnegie views this as dictatorial act. Carnegies view of individualism in not seen as a freedom of action for the individuals instead it is view as a concentration of power. With his contradictory meanings of individualism, Carnegie’s argument is