Andrew Carnegie: The Richest Man in the World.

             Andrew Carnegie: villain or hero? In order to aptly answer that question one must first clarify what definition of "hero" and "villain" are to be used. Webster defines hero as: "and person, especially a man admired for courage, nobility, or exploits, especially in war," also as, "the central figure in any important event or period, honored for outstanding qualities." Note that the only slight reference to morals is in the word exploits, inferring that conventionally bad morals may still be included in a hero. Webster defines villain as: "someone or something regarded as the cause of a problem, difficulty, injustice, etc." These two definitions are not necessarily how these words are widely thought of. More often than not a hero is though to be someone to does many goods for a cause and who is also a role model and therefore has conventionally good morals, and a villain is thought of a thoroughly bad individual considering only themselves in every situation. How each person defines hero and villain is different as well depending on personal views such as feminism, racism or personal existence such as the poor, or the elderly. So, when asked to declare Carnegie as a hero or a villain it is indeed a daunting task because in order to find the truth I must put aside my personal views and existence and stay strictly to the impartial dictionary definitions. .

             .

             As any person has good qualities as well as bad qualities Carnegie has hero attributes as well as those of a villain. Considering Carnegie as a villain, there is much cause and reason to consider him as such. First was his desire to reach the top no matter what the costs, a frame of mind he developed from his mother as we learned in the video. This mindset developed more so when Carnegie met Spencer who installed in him the ideas that "nature meant to cast them [the poor] aside," as well as "all is well since all goes better.