Philippe Donaus

Professor Gregory Morgan

HPL 456 Ethics of Business and Technology
25 February 2017

Is Carnegies idea of Charity Moral?

When money is the motivation for life, why would anyone give it up? Carnegie makes a strong

claim that contradicted the typical millionaires view of how they should look to utilize the wealth they

have created. He makes the argument that he and other members of the upper classes should be

charitable because they wouldnt use much of the money anyway. Carnegies reasoning behind

philanthropy makes sense if a moral heart is something to desire. Do not fall into his reasoning without

looking at what he and others gain from his advice. To be frank, Carnegies advice cannot be ethical

because his argument is made to appeal to those who have bought into an unethical system.

First, Carnegie does make a point to indicate that those who should be on the receiving end of

Philanthropy must buy into the system. He says that In bestowing charity, the main consideration

should be to help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by which those who

desire to improve may do so to assist, but rarely or never to do all. (Carnegie) The problem is that

Carnegie does not make it immediately clear that there lies a moral issue with his statement. It begs the

question of who is worthy of receiving help and who is no longer worthy/qualified for assistance. What

his idea introduces is the weighing of lives. This is an issue where as an individual looking to help

someone could discriminate against individuals they deem not worthy. It leaves open prejudice and as a

result will not obtain the goals that look to be on the surface of his arguments. Instead, he has provided

the wealthy with a reason to not give up their money. The takeaway is that for any individual who

doesnt come into large amounts of wealth at the time, Carnegie would be revered as a respectable and

just man. It is much easier for someone to carry that title while the masses are not looking for blood.
 Carnegies advice looks to protect the investments of the rich and makes arguments as too why

money should still remain with those who have amassed large amounts. In the writing, he introduces a

couple of ideas that still leaves the instigators of the problem of the unequal distribution of wealth in

power. Carnegie steps short of realizing the root of the problem with his argument, because he too will

step short of mentioning a Communist idea: that there are people who have too much while most have

little or none. Carnegies audience would be upper class members of society, so it is understandable that

he would not indicate that they take too much money from society. With this in mind, no matter what

his arguments are he still rejects the foundation of the issue: wealth inequality invokes that there are at

least two participating parties; those with wealth and those without. If an individual has amassed

wealth, he has incurred a debt for his fellow neighbor. When he chooses not to pay that debt and claims

that the solution is to give back only a portion of that debt, he continues to disadvantage his neighbor.

Carnegie cant admit he is a part of the problem.

Carnegie too is an instigator of the inequality that he sees. Carnegie is an individual who has had

a long and outstanding history of labor exploitation of the very members of society he appears to

indicate in his writing. Carnegie failed to recognize the simplest and purest way of helping his fellow

man, especially those who will help themselves; paying them more for the work he demanded of

them would have been better. Carnegie utilized tactics that would benefit him so that he would be able

to maximize profits by maintaining the value of his steel mills. In turn, these tactics would dehumanize,

and even cause the deaths of many of his workers because of his need and desire to keep the cost of his

steel low. He hired individuals who obviously did not share his benevolent nature to run his steel

factories. This brings up the moral and ethical issues with Carnegies work. He remains to be hypocritical,

and cannot provide the advice he gives without him first removing himself from the problem, which he

has not identified.

 Works Cited
Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth. Place of Publication Not Identified: Mogul Motivational, 2014.
Print.
"Pittsburgh Pirate." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 01 Feb. 2003. Web. 02 Mar. 2017.