Smart Opportunists: Point Of Views Of The Second Industrial Revolution

Smart opportunists. This could be a way of describing the second Industrial Revolution. The rapid growth of the country led to the necessity of innovative technologies. Therefore, the greatest minds worked hard to make them possible. However, every product needs to go through a process first. This is the part where the opportunists take place. Many names given to these opportunists are industrialists, businessmen or robber barons. Some examples are John D. Rockefeller, John P. Morgan, and Cornelius Vanderbilt. In fact, one notable example is Andrew Carnegie. Nonetheless, Andrew was slightly different. He was a philanthropist. One illustration of his philosophies is stated in his article “Wealth.” Conversely, the less fortunate made these processes
Both points of views can be seen on “The Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and “the life of a coal miner” by John McDowell, which will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
First, Andrew Carnegie’s point of view is the one of an educated and wealthy man, while McDowell’s is one of a coal miner. This is the first and most important comparison between these two men. In his article, Carnegie tries to put his ideas on how society is progressing. He quotes about how the accumulation of wealth is important and beneficial for progress. Also, he proposes a social responsibility to society to spread their wealth. Moreover, he argues that the creation and acquisition of luxuries is a sign of progress because, in past times, no worker could have had anything like that. Therefore, these ideas infer that everyone should aspire for more until they have the social responsibility to share it properly. Now, compared to “the life of a coal miner,” the ideals change a little bit. To begin with, John was born poor. Since the beginning, he was introduced to the mining industry. For this reason, he aspired to progress as a miner. Carnegie wants the people to aspire to become wealthy and successful, John writes about the
If I was poor at the time of the Industrialization and had to work long hours for a little amount of money, I would take Carnegie as an unethical man. However, times have changed, and it would be wrong to say that his point of view was unethical. Andrew was a clever man. The fact that he was a self-taught man, poor and immigrant makes his views credible because he has been on both sides. Just like the coal miner aspires for being better in his job, Carnegie once did the same. Ethically speaking, Carnegie, as far as history has provided for us, never did something that would harm others. First, his view on the survival of the fittest is not unethical, is just his point of view, and at a certain point, it is true. Only the smartest ones survive or persevere. If everyone had the best traits for survival, then there would be no competition. Additionally, the idea that the poor now enjoy what the rich never had at a time is not unethical. It promotes the idea of comfort yourself with what you have because at a time those things were not within anyone’s reach. However, now these luxuries are available, and the people should aspire to have more. Another point to restate is to help those who help themselves, this is also ethical. He talks about a social responsibility to improve society which is no way a harm to anyone. To sum up, Carnegie’s views can be considered