10 ms·

What an unfortunate event to befall a family of who acquired such wealth by honest means: In an 1907 essay Mark Twain portrayed Clark as the very embodiment of

by fleitz 13y ago

What an unfortunate event to befall a family of who acquired such wealth by honest means: In an 1907 essay Mark Twain portrayed Clark as the very embodiment of Gilded Age excess and corruption: He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs. To my mind he is the most disgusting creature that the republic has produced since Tweed's time.[5]

vinceguidry 13y ago
Not sure if you actually read the book, but it outlines the spirit of the times Clark lived in very well and makes the argument that Clark never stooped to the tactics of the so-called robber barons. He paid his employees well and gave back to communities. He was known as honest and fair to those who dealt with him. His political failings could be traced back to a socially awkward nature. Politics was messy business back then and it was impossible win a race completely honestly. Nothing he did back then was any worse than what everyone else did. It even examined Clark's history with Twain and Twain's own relationships with Clark's business rivals. That particular rant was very likely politically motivated.
- gcb1 13y ago
  so in conclusion they all lacked morals. or just being slightly less worse is enough for your ethics?
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    That's a very interesting philosophical question, how to judge historical figures accurately in terms of morality/ethics. My own position on the matter is that standards tend to evolve over time, so when seeking to evaluate someone, you need to take that into account. If you just go by the Golden Rule standard of ethics, W. A. Clark was far more worthy than many of his rivals of his success. Politics, by its very nature, introduces a great number of potential moral pitfalls and there aren't always good and effective approaches to evading them.
    - gcb1 13y ago
      not that complex. your approach to the problems is wrong. you start with the assumption that current politics belongs to the moral group, when it may very well be outside. so by that bad definition you think it is a complex problem. they got by with the times. got great fortune, brought great misery. like any other "great name". so maybe the concept of great name always having to befit an hero is what is wrong. humans must abandon the hero myth and the desires for immeasurable riches to be able to stand ground on the moral field. or you could keep the original paradigm and keep debating how to fit your data in the groups forever.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      The world isn't an ethical/moral dilemma, stuff happens and people rationalize it as to not disturb their worldview. If you can convince most people that your reasons about why stuff happened are valid then you win. It's like Remembrance Day, no one died for all the horrible shit that happened, only the good stuff.

by fleitz 13y ago

vinceguidry 13y ago

Not sure if you actually read the book, but it outlines the spirit of the times Clark lived in very well and makes the argument that Clark never stooped to the tactics of the so-called robber barons. He paid his employees well and gave back to communities. He was known as honest and fair to those who dealt with him. His political failings could be traced back to a socially awkward nature. Politics was messy business back then and it was impossible win a race completely honestly. Nothing he did back then was any worse than what everyone else did. It even examined Clark's history with Twain and Twain's own relationships with Clark's business rivals. That particular rant was very likely politically motivated.

gcb1 13y ago
so in conclusion they all lacked morals. or just being slightly less worse is enough for your ethics?
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  That's a very interesting philosophical question, how to judge historical figures accurately in terms of morality/ethics. My own position on the matter is that standards tend to evolve over time, so when seeking to evaluate someone, you need to take that into account. If you just go by the Golden Rule standard of ethics, W. A. Clark was far more worthy than many of his rivals of his success. Politics, by its very nature, introduces a great number of potential moral pitfalls and there aren't always good and effective approaches to evading them.
  - gcb1 13y ago
    not that complex. your approach to the problems is wrong. you start with the assumption that current politics belongs to the moral group, when it may very well be outside. so by that bad definition you think it is a complex problem. they got by with the times. got great fortune, brought great misery. like any other "great name". so maybe the concept of great name always having to befit an hero is what is wrong. humans must abandon the hero myth and the desires for immeasurable riches to be able to stand ground on the moral field. or you could keep the original paradigm and keep debating how to fit your data in the groups forever.
  - fleitz 13y ago
    The world isn't an ethical/moral dilemma, stuff happens and people rationalize it as to not disturb their worldview. If you can convince most people that your reasons about why stuff happened are valid then you win. It's like Remembrance Day, no one died for all the horrible shit that happened, only the good stuff.