Carnegie s philosophy in his Gospel of Wealth is that if the rich were to set an example to the poor then maybe they will fallow. He also says that the rich should live modestly and shun extravagance. He goes on to say that if a man gives charity for personal satisfaction is one of the most selfish actions of his life. Carnegie say that he wealthy need to give back to the community by giving them parks and works of art to do them lasting good. He finishes by saying that if you die a rich man and have not given back to the community then you die disgraced.
Carnegie s view of the poor people is that the need to be taken care. He feels that if there is not a rich person to, as he says, be “mere agents and trustees for his poorer brethren” then they would be at a lost on how to handle their money and only become poorer. He talks about the lower class people as if they were animals and do not know how to handle themselves. He feels that the only way that they have a chance of surviving is to depend on the rich to support them.
I agree with Carnegie s idea that if a wealthy man dies rich he is disgraced. I feel that if someone thinks that money is going to do him any good after he is dead then he is sorely mistaken. If I were rich and knew that I would die then I would leave enough money to my family to get them through my death and then I would give the rest to a mission or to a school of some sort, were it would go back to the community instead it collecting dust on a shelf some were. I think Carnegie has some good ideas on how to end poverty in America, but this system would never be followed now a days there are too many selfish rich people in this country that even if there was one rich man that wanted to help the poor, unless he was a extremely powerful rich person, would not help them because the want to fit in with the rest of the rich people.
The Essay on Criticizing The Argument Peter Singer Rich And Poor
The philosopher Peter Singer, in his paper Rich and Poor, gives the following argument: If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it. Absolute poverty is bad. There is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. Conclusion: We ought to prevent some absolute ...
His ideas are kind like communism in the purest form it i almost a prefect government, aside from the fact that there is no religion. Carnegie s ideas in the purest way are the answer to ending poverty in the U. S. , but due corruption and gluttony it would not work. If we were to work as a nation to end poverty it would have to start on the world wide basis, the only way to truly and poverty in the U. S.
and in the world is to get rid of all forms of money and just start giving things away. the only problem with this system though is that if we were to take away money there would be no need to work and if no one works then the pass production process will be stopped and then everything that we us would soon become rare commodities and then they in themselves would become currency. The only way that this system would work is if every body will do their job and every body helps each other out. As we speak the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer..
