How to Get the Poor Off Our Conscience

The continuous disparity of wealth and income can cause constant economic problems within a society. Although it is not apparent all the time, there are few benefits of discrepancy itself such as individual wealth, capital, and labor. Both Smith and Carnegie have distinct beliefs about wealth that differentiate from one another, yet are similar in certain ways. Adam Smith confined all his ideas about the common man in his “Wealth of Nations”. Whereas, in the “Gospel of Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie had distinct beliefs about the effects of capitalism . All in all, economic conditions of the 21st century still date back to previous years and signify the importance of economic competition.

The purpose of this essay is to inform the reader of a real problem, media misrepresentation, and to try to have the reader change the way the think, feel, and perceive the poor. She gives examples of encounters she has had that are a result of the damaging depiction and conveys to the reader why those thoughts are wrong by using her own personal experiences. She mentions that before entering college she never thought about social class. However, the comments from both other students and her professors about poverty were alarming to her. Other people viewed the poor as, “shiftless, mindless, lazy, dishonest, and unworthy” indigents. Hook opposes that stereotypical image of the poor, referring back to being taught in a “culture of poverty,” the values to be intelligent, honest, and hard-working. She uses these personal experiences to her advantage by showing she has had an inside look at poverty.

As civilization has evolved, economic inequality has existed since the feudal era and has made its place in modern society. It is a dilemma that examines the gap between the low wealth of the middle-class worker and the profitable earnings of the monopolizing upper-class business owner. It is a socio- economic issue that can best explored through the lens of the conflict theory; thoroughly explaining as to how the wealth gap came to exist and the consequences of such an economic state on the interaction between the middle-class worker and the wealthy businessman.

Supposedly, both the individuals with ascribed statuses with hereditary wealth and the poor and homeless have equal chances to become successful although, Orestes Bronwnson in The Laboring Classes, pointed out that this is not true. “Do the young man inheriting ten thousand pounds and the one whose inheritance is merely the gutter, start even?” (219). As a result, the harsh separation of the rich and the poor, where capitalism thrives and,” the division of the community into two classes, one which owns the funds…the other provides the labor” (216). The inhumane apprehension of a capitalist society that keeps its workers “in a permanent system, [has] given preference to the slave system” (214) says a lot about the evils of capitalism corresponding with the false American Dream. An outcome of capitalism is the frustrating rivalry between the poor. “There’s more people! That’s what’s ruining the country. The competition is maddening”

Social Darwinism is based on Charles Darwins thoery of natural evalution. They based a persons fitness off of weath, social status, and property. Poor poeple were seen as lazy, and less fit to survive. They decided that anyone could have a good work ethic, intelligence, and perserverance. Supported the idea of goverment policies should not regulate the market place or atempt social reform. Social Darwinism was also used by Andrew Caenagie and other Industrialists to support thier business practices.

Andrew Carnegie’s rhetoric in the “Gospel of Wealth,” challenged the economic disparities in the United States during the late 1800s by proposing a radical shift in the distribution of wealth as a solution to social improvement without understanding that poverty was not a personality deficit rather the result of oppression. Carnegie exemplified his philosophy and achieved the American Dream, yet he neglected that he was the exception to the rule, not the rule in itself. The “Gospel of Wealth” had too many assumptions, both with merit and not, when proposing how the distribution of wealth could alleviate economic hardships to the impoverished population without understanding the complexities of the working class.

William Graham Sumner was a social Darwinist who said “it is impossible that the man with capital and the man without capital should be equal. (Sumner,36)” Social Darwinists believed that evolution of human society was just as evolution in nature. Governments should not interfere

This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

Andre Carnegie was a poor immigrant who came to the United States in a quest for the realization of the American Dream. A self-started entrepreneur who through hard work and by taking advantage of the right opportunities was able to develop an enormous wealth, signifying with it, the definite possibility of social mobility. In his essay “Wealth” of 1989 Carnegie refers to the importance of the distribution of wealth and how such fortune was there to be used by the rich for the benefit and well-being of all individuals of society. Throughout this essay I will be explaining the arguments for the redistribution of wealth made by Carnegie, while analyzing as well the factors that may have motivated him to write his famous essay “Wealth.”

These people wanted an economic market that was free from outside regulation. They contended that the system itself, like nature, had inherent systems of checks and balances. Because the stronger and more cunning fox survives, he passes on his positive traits and furthers the entire species genetically. Similarly, the stronger and more successful businessman weeds out his unskilled competitors. This allows the entire system to progress and provides positive examples for future generations to follow. This justification through “scientific law” promoted acceptance because science was held in high regard at the time. When lectures, publications, and even private conversations tackled the controversial issue of business regulation, people cited the principles of Social Darwinism time and time again. By providing firm scientific principles that could be used as evidence on popular issues, Social Darwinism consumed discussions and spread wildly.

In the article “ Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, Garrett Hardin (1974) argues that wealthy people should not be responsible for the poor and that the consequences of feeding the poor are detrimental to the environment and to the society as a whole. Hardin was a well known philosopher and ecologist. He earned his bachelor's degree in zoology from the University of Chicago in 1936 and also earned his doctorate degree in microbiology from Stanford University in 1941 (Garrett Hardin, n.d.). The main issue that he tackled was human overpopulation and one of the books that he wrote that analyzed this issue was called ‘How Global Population Growth Threatens Widespread Social Disorder’(1992). Because the author has a sufficient

Garrett Hardin’s excerpt from “Lifeboat Ethics” first appeared in Psychology Today in September 1974. In this essay, there is a metaphor that rich and poor are very different. I strongly disagree with Hardin’s metaphor even though he is truthful about his beliefs. The metaphor is only being seen in one point of view, when there are multiple ways of looking at it.

Addressed in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer’s full assertion is that, it is morally wrong for people to spend money on morally insignificant things instead of spending money to prevent suffering and dying from preventable diseases and famine. He begins his argument with the first premise: “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.”(231) Such premise is direct, simple, accepted by most people in the society. Peter Singer hence take such assumption as accepted by the readers and quickly moves to his next premise.

10, 2013). Thus, the view of people in need of assistance began to be seen as a burden and “against the laws of economic nature” (Day & Schiele, p. 10, 2013). The Darwinism theory still infiltrates the social welfare system in the US today.

This picture depicts the idea behind social Darwinism. IT is a powerful society in which keeps the wealthy, and powerful and kicks out the minority, poor folks who are no longer able to survive in such a materialistic world.