What does Carnegie
seem to have believed would be the best way to improve the lives of other
people, and how can you tell?
Carnegie seemed to have believed that the best way to improve the lives of other people is through widespread education along with integration of arts. His method of dealing with poverty is more along the lines of educating people to become independently stable economically rather than handing out free money with no education on how to handle the money. His goals also clearly include enriching creativity in cultures by integrating art into well populated areas. These goals are obviously seen through the education programs offered by his installments that reach out to their perspective communities along with job opportunities for those in need of employment.
What is your opinion
of this approach? What is a counter
argument?
I believe this is an extremely practical approach with a great probability of success due to the fact that it promotes individual achievement and educates populations on how to be economically stable which will have better long term effects than immediate fixes to poverty. A counter argument is that this method is not an immediate solution to those in near-death situations and that it does not provide tangible necessities to the impoverished such as good, water, or shelter.
If you had hundreds
of millions of dollars to give away, what would you do?
If I had millions to give away I would do exactly what Carnegie did with the exception of some contribution to immediate causes but most emphasis on long term solutions to benefit humanity as a whole. I would also provide others with the same opportunities I was given
