h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is materialism such a new thing?

If fame has replaced gods in modern times then what was it replacing when the Pharoahs built their pyramids?

Who said that about fame?

Materialism in the shape of the driving force behind contemporary consumerism is a new phenomenon. The ideal of owning lots has been modified into buying compplete lifestyles. The product is secondary to its image in many ways. New products of inferior quality often outrank old ones interms of desirability inspite of the fact and actually because sometimes, they are less durable than old ones.

We are less in touch with nature, people do not dress for the winter, they buy clothes for outdoor pursuits and for the party season. Even christianily bowed down to the old order by pairing its festivals with those of earlier cultures and the natural cycles of the planet. Now people delight in eating strawberries out of season not just for the taste but because it indicates their access to material items.

Consumerism has one central message, that not to have is to fail and the more new things you have the more successful and happy you will be. Obviously people will be happy when they buy, but will soon realise they are not smiling constantly like the people in the adverts. So they will do more and more shopping in the hope that one day they will acheive bliss through possessions.

Not that ifferent from many religions in that it keeps the herd mollified and afraid that if they dont keep running round in their little hamster cages that they will be condemned to eternal unhappiness bought on by not owning a leather sofa and large screen TV.

one love

Materialism is not a new thing, but it does require an economic surplus to become widespread, and the modern form of consumerism as a "social ethos" *is* something relatively new, I think.

A "moral compass" needs some sort of map that represents commonly accepted rules. There is no morality without some sort of social base, because morality has an imperative that goes beyond individual personal preference.

Noggin

Hi Noggin. I find myself wondering why Jesus was so keen to get the rich to consider the poor. Then I recall his story of a stranger who was unusually generous, unlike the locals. Perhaps this wasn't an indication of anything like modern materialism, as is implied by your remarks. In which case, I suppose it must have been a lack of empathy or a refusal to consider anyone outside the family or tribe.

I'm rather sceptical about the existence of a common morality in present times. As Baroness Warnock says: on such matters we all draw the line in a different place. One person's perfectly decent behaviour is someone else's obscenity. This would appear to be inevitable in a multicultural society.

Nevertheless, I think we can fall back on ethics and think for ourselves. However, I suspect that fewer are capable of doing so intelligently. R.M.Hare was probably correct when he suggested that the majority ought to stick to a rule of thumb. Patronising, yes; but analytical thinking is not often encountered outside the confines of pages such as these!

toxx

Hi Midnat. This is the 'God of the gaps' story again. However, we can't expect science to explain everything. There are important areas that it just doesn't cover. Dividing good from evil, or right from wrong is one example. So how do *you* manage this particular trick?

toxx

Who are 'the herd', 'the majority', 'the people' etc. Why do I never meet any of them, and more importantly, what sets any of us apart from them?

Bouncy. Quite obviously, you don't live here in Stoke-on-Trent!

toxx

toxx

Rephrase that as a universal morality and I'd certainly agree with you. But neither can morality be purely individual (even if there was enough logical space for such a multiplicity).

Noggin

Noggin. I don't really get the diff between 'universal' and 'common'. I agree we can't have a logically private morality (hmmm, rings a bell!). But I think we can have an ethic that's as private as anything can be.

toxx

Blicky

Accepted, not a quibble
In most cases I think our moral framework is externally determined by the society we live in
Even if we reject part of our societies morality we often adopt another such as that of socialism wholesale

Like it or not - the "herd" is at the basis of a belief in God. Humans are tribal and tribes need a leader. A belief in a god stems from the need for an all powerful all knowing leader. If you don't have that you have other forms eg football supporters follwing their "gods" But dont get me wrong i enjoy a good football match

Really! So everyone who is a member of the 'herd' believes in God or football, and the rest do not? What is the evidence for this assertion? Sounds like an assumption to me or, even worse, 'common sense'!

toxx

Surely you dont have to have a belief in god to act for him,it could
verilly be aurgued i say to all ye who will hear brothers the man known as jesus was another communist as seen by his views all men on this earth are = distrbute your wealth no writeings about him show
closer alliences with this the life he lead ect

I agree with you there, toxxin - it sounds like an elitist assumption to me!

We're all members of the herd to a greater or lesser extent
Anyone who believes that the society they live in has had no influence on their morality is deluding themselves

That's true - but the previous poster seemed to be lumping a group called 'the herd' all together, and setting herself above them, as somehow more knowledgeable.
I contend that with mass media being more apparent than they were even in the long-ago,unlamented 1970s (, we're getting to the point where there are many different "herds", even in the one society say, Europe.. Then there are many different herds in the USA, NZ, Australia etc. (There is overlap, and there are connections between groups in USA/UK etc.) (That would make life confusing for an extra-terrestrial anthropologist here on a field trip.)

Cat People! There are individuals thinkers too, except that then we call it 'ethics' instead of 'morals'. OK, I won't deny that ethics, like everything else, has to be influenced by the environment including the social one.

toxx

ACW. I think you need a double parenthesis at the end of your message for balance. Or is the first one a typo? Hey, I liked the 70s. In me prime about then and enjoying it.

toxx

Agreed there are individual thinkers but no one develops all of their beliefs from first principles for themselves

BC. We're pretty much agreed then. The good bit is that if even a part of the thinking is new, there can be a lot of change over time. Maybe not always for the better - but, on balance, I'm sure that change is essential to us.

toxx