(Spencer, 1857)
In contrast and in comparison the writings of Andrew Carnegie also lend to the idea of the apologist, as if his luck and ingenuity give him a special place in the world of men, and therefore he has contributed to the greater good. Carnegie, stresses that the differences between the rich and the common are necessary as the greatest will rise to the top and from this lofty height will be better judges of the common need. Carnegie was such an apologist that one of his foundational philosophies, which he lived by was that instead of blindly giving the wealth of the father to the son or the descendants at all was the most irresponsible of social actions for the very wealthy. Here he makes a distinction between the very wealthy with surplus wealth and those perceived as wealthy but who really simply have amassed just enough to maintain and help their progeny grow in the future. Carnegie makes an important statement here that through history rings true, and must here be mentioned and that is that inheritance of large sums of money tend to be a hindrance to the descendants, rather than a great thing, as without the full understanding of the philanthropic need and/or how to manage such wealth they often lose it or squander it to everyone's demise. (Carnegie, 1889)
Carnegie also admonished those who would bequeath their surplus wealth to the state, upon their death, though he is in clear support of estate or death tax as it is the official way in which the state recognizes the need for wealth to be distributed to good rather than squandered by descendants. This to him is the second, slightly better...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now