Essay on The Gospel of Wealth, by Andrew Carnegie

Decent Essays

In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could …show more content…

The company might benefit because it will be able to reinvest the profit and continue making affordable items, possibly forcing their competition out of business. When Carnegie speaks about individualism, private property, the law of accumulation of wealth, and the law of competition, he says “for these are the highest results of human experience, the soil in which society has so far produced the best fruit” (395). Social classes have different standards of living. By properly administering wealth, Carnegie becomes the trustee of his poorer brethren’s funds. He believes the wealthy man, with his superior knowledge and experience in financial matters, is better suited to administer these funds. Carnegie says he would be “doing for them better than they would or could for themselves” (399). A wealthy person could buy a few acres of land, build a hospital, and create a hundred jobs in the hospital while creating affordable or free health care. The wealthy do not have to worry about how much it would cost if they were diagnosed with pneumonia. They simply take the diagnosis, pay for the treatment, and move on with their lives. A diagnosis of the same magnitude to a poor person could be life threatening. When Carnegie talks about
Morris 3 doing better for them that they could or would do for themselves, he touches on two points. The obvious being “could”, meaning they cannot afford to

Get Access