Is Materialism still immoral?

[Technosoul]

I seems that in our modern world that it is wrong to mix money and morality, we have a unseen seperation between business and religious idealism. But I ask you, is poverty still a moral issue, form your perspective or not?

Is the love of money still the root of all evil?

I am talking mainly to those who come here to talk religion. (Althrough anyone can pipe in).

Did the mission that Jesus originated confuse social issues with what it means to be a moral person, rightiousness? Did I missunderstand the message?

It seems religion has become big business and a lot of them preachers are living high on the hog, is that moral?

Republican right wingers have a new moral standard, the work ethic - "people who work hard and get rich should not concern their self with lazy bums who do not find jobs". And yet the same right wingers will preach all day about the immorality of stem cell research or about the bad words found in rap music. Topics Jesus never even mentioned.

Now some chruches might fund a "soup for a sermon" mission down on skid row. But clearly the problem of poverty is much bigger then what those missions can handle, just one look at Africa and the mass starvation there would make that apparent, but even here in our own back alley the homeless problem is getting out of hand, and running out of hand outs.

Is religious socialism taboo nowadays in our capitalistic system - how did that happen? It was not always that way was it? Nowadays most aggressive religions are just into havesting souls so that people will not end up in hell, while turning their backs on the real problems that people are suffering with in the here and now.

Where are the believers? Those who believe in unconditional compassion?

Technosoul.

[Starboy]

It is not as if Jesus talked all that much about the work ethic. I would say that his message was somewhat the opposite.

Starboy

[tinybear]

Was materialism ever immoral?

[tman_ndsu08]

Um..screw what other people think.

Materialism and morals are seperate, personal choices.

[Technosoul]

Starboy is right - Jesus did not talk about the importance of working for a living, unless you think that preaching is a real job - it might be if you had to manage a big church business, but not if you were walking around like a homeless person with a soapbox. But Jesus did talk a lot about helping the poor - and encouraged do so as a moral obligation - he even said "giving to the poor is the same thing as helping the Lord" (or words to that effect).

But behold, being selfish materialistically no longer seems immoral - it has become as moral by modern standards as eating something other then fish on Friday. (not good for the disciple's fishing industry- by the way).

Just a quick review of the few messages already posted would confirm that. How come materialism is no longer classified as something a "sinner" does? Have Americans really become "Infidells" (however bin laden spells that word - I forgot).

Technosoul.

[Morgan_Freeman]

The most moral act is to produce wealth.

[Samildanach]

That depends largely on how you produce it. If it is by taking advantage of your fellow man then it isnot moral at all.

[Charles]

The concept of money is simple. For there to be rich, there will always have to be poor.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Samildanach That depends largely on how you produce it. If it is by taking advantage of your fellow man then it isnot moral at all.

What do you mean, "taking advantage"?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Charles The concept of money is simple. For there to be rich, there will always have to be poor.

Good work.

[castille]

I've heard that archeological studies have even found cavemen actually had primitive forms of "money"; things like beads, ancient jewellery, etc. Most of this "money" wasn't to buy things, but to impress other cavemen.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: castille I've heard that archeological studies have even found cavemen actually had primitive forms of "money"; things like beads, ancient jewellery, etc. Most of this "money" wasn't to buy things, but to impress other cavemen.

Quote by: Mirriam-Webster Main Entry: 1mon·ey Pronunciation: 'm&-nE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural moneys or mon·ies /'m&-nEz/ Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English moneye, from Middle French moneie, from Latin moneta mint, money -- more at MINT 1 : something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a : officially coined or stamped metal currency b : MONEY OF ACCOUNT c : PAPER MONEY 2 a : wealth reckoned in terms of money b : an amount of money c plural : sums of money : FUNDS 3 : a form or denomination of coin or paper money 4 a : the first, second, and third place winners (as in a horse or dog race) -- usually used in the phrases in the money or out of the money b : prize money <his horse took third money> 5 a : persons or interests possessing or controlling great wealth b : a position of wealth <born into money> - for one's money : according to one's preference or opinion - on the money : exactly right or accurate

I think you meant to say "bling".

[Technosoul]

Perhaps it is not about the earning of money but what you do with it after you get it that matters, if it just takes care of basic needs so you can live a decent life relative to the neighbors then morality would not be in question, but when folks find a way to gain an extreme amount of money that well surpasses what they honestly need to live a decent life, then that is when people might claim that they have a moral responsibilty of some kind to share the wealth.

Of course you cannot be rich without the contrast of others being poor - for comparison purposes. But you cannot have high moral standards without also having poor moral standards.

On the other hand it would be foolish to try to buy a sense of morality out of guilt through giving people some of it (your excess wealth), and then patting your self on the back. That would be as 'selfish' as keeping the money, if you are just trying to buy a "good feeling" for your self.

However is compassion just a sign of weakness or is compassion a sign of morality?

What is morality anyway? Is it just a theory? Something that simply reflects the culture that might be influencing how a person thinks? Or can morality really be what religion calls "the will of God" - meaning that it is an attutude that is divinely required for the salvation of one's soul. And is religion and such things as biblical instructions also just part of a particular culture - in which case morality is phycholoically an adaptaton to the group identity of the culture?

What is your philosophy or opinon about this somewhat allusive concept called morality, especially in the context of morality and money.

tech

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman The most moral act is to produce wealth.

Are you intentionally quoting Francisco d'Anconia?

[castille]

Quote by: Technosoul but when folks find a way to gain an extreme amount of money that well surpasses what they honestly need to live a decent life, then that is when people might claim that they have a moral responsibilty of some kind to share the wealth.

What do you mean by a "decent life"? According to people who live in Ethiopia, a decent life is having food to eat. So technically, shouldn't you, as an evil rich person who basks in luxuries like electricity and the Internet (and working toilets), give all your excess money to Ethiopians? I mean all you need for a decent life is food and oxygen.

Sorry, but unless you are willing to give up all your luxuries and live a plain life, I can't buy this argument.

[/quote]What is your philosophy or opinon about this somewhat allusive concept called morality, especially in the context of morality and money.[/quote]
Morality is simply conforming to what society (ie. the church, or the government) says is right or wrong.

[Athena]

Quote by: castille What do you mean by a "decent life"? According to people who live in Ethiopia, a decent life is having food to eat. So technically, shouldn't you, as an evil rich person who basks in luxuries like electricity and the Internet (and working toilets), give all your excess money to Ethiopians? I mean all you need for a decent life is food and oxygen. Sorry, but unless you are willing to give up all your luxuries and live a plain life, I can't buy this argument.

What is your philosophy or opinon about this somewhat allusive concept called morality, especially in the context of morality and money.[/quote]
Morality is simply conforming to what society (ie. the church, or the government) says is right or wrong.[/quote]

Technosoul seems to be refering to noblesse oblige.

noblesse oblige - definition of noblesse oblige in EncyclopediaIn French, noblesse oblige means, literally, nobility obliges. It is generally used to imply that with wealth, power and prestige come responsibilities.
encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/noblesse_oblige - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

This site mentions Athens (our democracy comes from Athens) and France's understanding of noblesse oblige, but it was also common for native American cheifs to give away their wealth, and certainly Jesus and his followers found favor with giving, incase some want to claim the greatness of the US is to the credit of Chrsitianity. However, claiming this cross cultural behavior as Christian, isn't really fair to everyone else who agrees with noblesse oblige.

[Athena]

Quote by: Technosoul Perhaps it is not about the earning of money but what you do with it after you get it that matters, if it just takes care of basic needs so you can live a decent life relative to the neighbors then morality would not be in question, but when folks find a way to gain an extreme amount of money that well surpasses what they honestly need to live a decent life, then that is when people might claim that they have a moral responsibilty of some kind to share the wealth. Of course you cannot be rich without the contrast of others being poor - for comparison purposes. But you cannot have high moral standards without also having poor moral standards. On the other hand it would be foolish to try to buy a sense of morality out of guilt through giving people some of it (your excess wealth), and then patting your self on the back. That would be as 'selfish' as keeping the money, if you are just trying to buy a "good feeling" for your self. However is compassion just a sign of weakness or is compassion a sign of morality? What is morality anyway? Is it just a theory? Something that simply reflects the culture that might be influencing how a person thinks? Or can morality really be what religion calls "the will of God" - meaning that it is an attutude that is divinely required for the salvation of one's soul. And is religion and such things as biblical instructions also just part of a particular culture - in which case morality is phycholoically an adaptaton to the group identity of the culture? What is your philosophy or opinon about this somewhat allusive concept called morality, especially in the context of morality and money. tech

In the debate about Justice, Socrates said when people are exploited, sooner of later they become a problem to those who benefited from exploiting them. He said this could take 3 generations, but is sure to happen, as planting corn gets a harvest of corn. Really, isn't poverty like a cancer that one way or another comes back to us in destructive ways?

Here is an explanation of Socrates' explanation of moral. Socrates, as Plato presents him, is one of the most important thinkers leading to our democracy.

"One example of his effect on philosophy is found in the dialog Euthyphro. He suggests that what is to be considered a good act is not good because gods say it is, but is good because it is useful to us in our efforts to be better and happier people. This means that ethics is no longer a matter of surveying the gods or scripture for what is good or bad, but rather thinking about life. He even placed individual conscience above the law -- quite a dangerous position to take!"

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
It is difficult to distinguish what is Socrates and what is Plato in these ...
Plato talks about three levels of pleasure. First is sensual or physical ...
www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/athenians.html - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Prometheus Are you intentionally quoting Francisco d'Anconia?

Pretty much.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Pretty much.

Nice to have a kindred spirit. I've just been waiting for someone to say "money is the root of all evil" so I can spring the rest of the argument.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: castille What do you mean by a "decent life"? According to people who live in Ethiopia, a decent life is having food to eat. So technically, shouldn't you, as an evil rich person who basks in luxuries like electricity and the Internet (and working toilets), give all your excess money to Ethiopians? I mean all you need for a decent life is food and oxygen. Sorry, but unless you are willing to give up all your luxuries and live a plain life, I can't buy this argument.

What is your philosophy or opinon about this somewhat allusive concept called morality, especially in the context of morality and money.[/quote]
Morality is simply conforming to what society (ie. the church, or the government) says is right or wrong.[/quote]

That is correct - a decent life is one that is common to the normal standards of your comminity or country. If you "think globally" then the differences between the poor and rich become even greater.

By global standards if I am lucky enough to have something to eat and drink then I can count my blessings. Having a car or the type of car I drive would not even be a concideration. However I personally could not put a dent in the starvaton problems happening in 3rd world countries, no matter how simplistic or non-materialistic I lived my life in order to send money off to food relief organizations. As an anology that would be like one cowboy fighting off an army of 10.000 indians. Such a battle is doomed for failure. And if we live poorly to help others who are poor we only add another poor person to the list - our self.

Those logical interpretations would make me think that morality is totally impossible because it is rooted in attaining some sort of perfection - a perfect world. With all the odds agenst you. Morality is nothing short of some kind of big miricle, Jesus (in the storybook version of morality) could take a couple of baskets of fish and feed a large crowd of people, but us normal folks cannot preform such miricles and so we are stuck with being immoral pigs. On the other hand if we had three baskets of fish and only needed to eat one or two fishes - why let the rest go to waste? Invite as many as possible to dig in. Now Bill Gates has lots of fish in his bank account - but why should rich people be the only ones who have a chance of being moral. Is that fair to those who don't have extra money to donate, and in turn cannot do moral deeds (in that manner of speaking)?

Hmmmm?

Technosoul.