Final answer:
Andrew Carnegie believed direct charity to be an 'evil' because it could foster dependency and undermine self-reliance. Instead, he advocated for philanthropy that created opportunities for self-improvement, such as funding libraries and educational institutions. Carnegie's philosophy on wealth was that the rich have a duty to benefit society, encouraging empowerment over dependency.
Step-by-step explanation:
Andrew Carnegie's perspective on philanthropy was significantly different from the mere act of charity. He believed that direct charity was often damaging because it could perpetuate a cycle of dependency and weaken the virtues of hard work and self-reliance. In Carnegie's own words from The Gospel of Wealth, he states: "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". Direct charity, in his view, was an 'evil' when it enabled the individual's shortcomings rather than promoting their empowerment.
Andrew Carnegie viewed the role of the wealthy as stewards of their fortunes, with a moral responsibility to use their wealth to enhance societal progress in a manner that encouraged individual initiative and growth. Carnegie did not hate charity in all its forms; rather, he despised a particular form of charity that he felt was unhelpful and potentially harmful to the recipients. He emphasized using wealth to create institutions like libraries and schools that provided opportunities for individuals to elevate themselves.
Andrew Carnegie on Charity
The type of philanthropy advocated by Carnegie is illustrated through his funding of public libraries and research institutions, which provided a foundation for individuals to help themselves. Rather than just giving money away, he believed in creating opportunities for people to develop their own capabilities and lift themselves out of poverty. This is why Carnegie considers philanthropy to be superior to blind charity, which he saw as serving mostly to soothe the giver's conscience, but not effectively addressing the roots of poverty or helping create a more equitable society.