Andrew Carnegie: Egoist vs Alruist

I think that human beings are very complex by nature and a person cannot be defined by a single characteristic or attribute. However, I feel that Andrew Carnegie displayed more egocentric than altruistic tendencies.

Andrew Carnegie’s rags-to-riches story is one known to many, as he embodied the American dream, starting out as a telegrapher messenger boy at the age of 17. In 1873, Carnegie organised the first of his steel works. Over the coming decades, Carnegie Steel grew to become an empire and by 1900, it produced more steel than all of Great Britain. [1]

Carnegie was known to be a shrewd investor and businessman and this is something I would be ready to believe. For a business to rise so greatly in such a short span of time, I am sure the person/persons at its helm would have had to make many difficult decisions with regards to eliminating the competition and ensuring profitability. In such a dog-eat-dog capitalist world of his time, such a position of power and responsibility would require a person with some degree of egoism.

It is also important to note that whilst many of his business decisions may seem immoral and unethical to many of us today, they were not by any means illegal during that period in the 19th century. [2] In fact, Carnegie’s business practices were standard for the time and were no worse than those of his fellow industrialists. [3]

Despite his generous philanthropy, funding nearly 3,000 libraries around the world and preaching the obligation of the wealthy to return their money to the societies [4], I do not however agree with referring him ultimately as an “altruist”. Altruism is defined as a “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others”. [5]

His actions, whilst commendable, does not “provide a refuge from self-questioning” and does not justify or negate any supposed exploitation and mistreatment of his employees. How different then is this from the Robin Hood concept of stealing from the rich and giving...