Home » Academics » Nerds' Corner

Materialisms and Why They Matter, Part 2

A Quick Recap of Part 1

As I mentioned in my first article, this series is trying to get straight on materialism. To do this, on the way to saying important things about important stuff, the series is going to argue that our common, everyday notion of materialism is both conceptually inadequate and spiritually unhelpful. In the predecessor to this article, we made some conceptual distinctions necessary for articulating this argument. To review, these distinctions concerned the following varieties of materialism:

Consumer Materialism: The common, everyday understanding of materialism. On this understanding, materialism amounts (more or less) to owning lots of stuff, using lots of stuff or wanting lots of stuff, and the more stuff you own, use or want, the more of a materialist you are.

Ontological Materialism: The metaphysical view that only material things exist. On this view, since they are all made up entirely of matter, things like Earth, the ozone layer, Yellowstone National Park, the Louvre and the paintings within it, your heart, your lungs, and so on, all exist. In contrast, since they are all spiritual rather than material, this view denies that things like God, souls and minds exist.

Axiological Materialism: One is an axiological materialist if one either holds the belief that material wellbeing is more important than every other form of wellbeing or has the actual habit of valuing material wellbeing over every other form of wellbeing. On this definition of materialism, the Christian who believes that spiritual wellbeing is more important than material wellbeing but, as a matter of actual habit, prioritizes shopping and tanning over reading the Bible is an axiological materialist.

Does Ontological Materialism Lead to Axiological Materialism?

How are consumer, ontological and axiological materialism related to each other?

Well, for starters, ontological materialism leads logically to axiological materialism. If only material stuff exists, then material wellbeing is the only kind of wellbeing there is. (If there aren't any spirits, for example, then there can't be any such thing as spiritual wellbeing.) So, if we're going to value any kind of wellbeing at all, we'd better not be ontological materialists unless we're also prepared to be axiological materialists.

Consumer Materialism and its Siblings

Does axiological materialism also lead to ontological materialism, then? Can one be led to believe only in material things by first valuing only material things?

I think the answer is yes. But first, note something about consumer materialism.

The consumer materialist has a particular view of the good life. She thinks she'd be happy if she just had a bigger house, or nicer car, or a new pair of shoes. Houses, cars and shoes are all material things, though, so the consumer materialist is also an axiological materialist. If she doesn't believe material wellbeing is more important than other forms of wellbeing, at least she's in the habit of acting as if she does.

But are all axiological materialists consumer materialists? Clearly not. Houses, cars and shoes are only a small subset of all the material things there are. And since prioritizing your life around any material thing other than houses, cars or rings would make you just as much of an axiological materialist as prioritizing your life around houses and cars would, consumer materialism can't be the only form of axiological materialism.

Consider the following people, then. Suppose each of them lives a very modest life in terms of their possessions and the resources they consume — none of them has a large house or an expensive SUV, for example — and ask yourself if each of them might be an axiological materialist nonetheless.

• Jacque, the museum curator, who devotes the bulk of his time and energy to caring for his museum, enjoying the arts and promoting the arts.
• Tanner, the Yellowstone park ranger, who worries deeply about endangered species, global warming and things like that.
• Rachel, the athletic trainer, who's big into yoga and prioritizes her life around health and fitness.

Even though they're not consumer materialists, are Jacque, Tanner and Rachel axiological materialists of another stripe?

Well, we clearly don't know enough about them to tell. Among other things, the answer to this question depends on why they do what they do. Tanner, for example, might be a creationist who views endangered species as inestimably valuable because God created them, and he might view his efforts at conservation as a form of praise.

But note, though, that paintings, sculptures, Old Faithful, the ozone layer, hearts and human bodies in general — in short, the things Jacque, Tanner and Rachel care about — are all material things. They're made entirely out of matter. They don't have a single part that isn't composed of electrons, protons and neutrons. So, on the assumption that Jacque, Tanner and Rachel view personal fitness, the arts, the environment and even the physical bodies of the poor as ends in themselves, then Jacque, Tanner and Rachel definitely are axiological materialists, even though they aren't consumer materialists.

Does Axiological Materialism Lead to Ontological Materialism?

So axiological materialism can manifest itself in multiple ways. Do each of these ways lead to ontological materialism, then?

While I think axiological materialism leads less forcefully to ontological materialism than ontological materialism leads to axiological materialism, it seems to me that axiological materialism can and often does lead to ontological materialism. Here, I suspect the relationship is more psychological than logical, though.

Generally speaking, if you can pursue what you value in life just fine without believing in certain things (call them Xs), you'll be more likely to doubt that there are Xs than someone who can't pursue what he values in life without believing in Xs. Since axiological materialists value material things, axiological materialists will be able to pursue their values just fine without believing in immaterial things (God, souls, angels and so on). It shouldn't surprise us, then, if axiological materialists are also often ontological materialists.

Jacque, Tanner and Rachel would be able to pursue their values just fine without believing in anything that isn't a material part of the material world. The likes of Jacque, Tanner and Rachel, then, will be more likely to be ontological materialists than people who can't pursue their values without believing in souls, God, and immaterial things like that.¹

What's so Bad About (Consumer) Materialism?

We stated in Part 1 that consumer materialism is really just the common, everyday notion of materialism. What we've seen is that, while people like Jacque, Tanner and Rachel are clearly not materialists in the common, everyday sense, there is another sense in which they clearly are materialists. After all, when they think of wellbeing (in the deepest, broadest sense of the word), none of them thinks of anything beyond the material world.

But this raises a question. Why do we Christians focus almost exclusively on consumer materialism? What makes consumer materialism worse than other varieties of axiological materialism?

Suppose we call Jacque's variety of materialism "aesthetic materialism," Tanner's variety of materialism "environmental materialism," and Rachel's variety of materialism "H&F materialism" (for "health and fitness materialism"). It's clear why aesthetic materialists, environmental materialists, and H&F materialists all think ill of consumer materialists. Aesthetic materialists put the arts above everything else, and consumer materialists treat them as just another product for consumption. Environmental materialists put the environment above everything else and SUVs are bad for the environment. H&F materialists put health and fitness above everything else and consumer materialists spend all their time in front of their $10,000 plasma screens.

From the Christian perspective, however, isn't consumer materialism just one among many ways to put the material world above its creator? Don't Jacque, Tanner and Rachel put the material world above God just as much as the consumer materialist does? What's the important distinction between them, then?

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

Do you think valuing material well-being can lead to believing that only the physical world exists?

Join the discussion!

I'm open to changing my mind, but, right now, I'm inclined to doubt that there is one. I'm inclined to suspect that we focus solely on consumer materialisms because it conflicts, not with our Christian worldview, but because it conflicts with other varieties of materialism. There's a lot to this accusation (I'm guilty myself), so I'll say more about it in my next article.