Carnegie Think It Is Better To Build Public Institutions Than To Give Charity To The Poor
1. Why does Carnegie think it is better to build public institutions than to give charity to the poor? Carnegie believes it is better to build public institutions than to give to charity because it is best to help people help themselves than to only temporarily relieve their worries. As Andrew Carnegie had stated, “…temporary assistance can do genuine good…” (Foner 30), but what happens when the temporary assistance ceases? For example, if you were to give money to a beggar on the street, their problem is only fixed until that money is spent. After that, they are left in the same position as before. However, if you were to build a public institution like a library, that same beggar could begin to help himself by perhaps gaining more knowledge
…show more content…
For example, if you have died rich, you have done nothing but hoard your wealth and chances are that most of society would not think kindly of you, therefore being disgraced. On the other hand, if you “spread the wealth” by building a public institution, that could better the community as a whole. In addition to helping the community, you would know that your wealth would have a lasting contribution to the betterment of society and you would gain a positive image in the eyes of others. Having a system like this wouldn’t be depriving the wealthy from their rights, however, since “The laws of accumulation will be left free, the laws of distribution free” (Foner 30), according to Carnegie. That means that the wealthy could gain as much money as they can and could spend it however they wish, but there would be pressure on them to do what is morally right. Think about it—how can we expect to advance as a society by allowing the wealthy to “hoard” their wealth? If a group of people have possession of a vast majority of the wealth available and choose to keep it, nothing would change or get any better for those not a part of that top percentage. In order to survive as a society, there has to be a constant flow of wealth between citizens and the community. If not, the problem of wealth and poverty would only
For example, if you have died rich, you have done nothing but hoard your wealth and chances are that most of society would not think kindly of you, therefore being disgraced. On the other hand, if you “spread the wealth” by building a public institution, that could better the community as a whole. In addition to helping the community, you would know that your wealth would have a lasting contribution to the betterment of society and you would gain a positive image in the eyes of others. Having a system like this wouldn’t be depriving the wealthy from their rights, however, since “The laws of accumulation will be left free, the laws of distribution free” (Foner 30), according to Carnegie. That means that the wealthy could gain as much money as they can and could spend it however they wish, but there would be pressure on them to do what is morally right. Think about it—how can we expect to advance as a society by allowing the wealthy to “hoard” their wealth? If a group of people have possession of a vast majority of the wealth available and choose to keep it, nothing would change or get any better for those not a part of that top percentage. In order to survive as a society, there has to be a constant flow of wealth between citizens and the community. If not, the problem of wealth and poverty would only