It appears to me that all of one’s belongings lie on a spectrum with regard to their importance. “Importance” being the best term I can think of for this instance. As objects continue along this spectrum, they take more primacy in one’s life and become more and more a representation of their owner. There is also more pride taken in these objects by their owner as they grow in “importance,” and this pride is socially seen as good. The highest order object for most people along this spectrum is their home, while the least is something highly temporary and discardable.
What I’ve been thinking about is where the line is, in a moral sense regarding how we should view, act and feel about these objects. As objects are promoted along our individual importance hierarchies, we begin to see decisions made around these objects become more a reflection of one’s own taste and values. Take a home, or car, for example. The look, cleanliness, condition and quality of these objects occupies an enormous amount of mental space for their owner’s. There is social judgement regarding these objects and what they say about their owner. An object in the middle of the spectrum, say a bag, for example, has very little meaning attached to it. If you had a tattered, dirty bag, no reasonable person would assume you live a shabby lifestyle. But a dirty, mechanically unsound car? Different story.
My realization is that all of these objects are just that, objects. They are things. I think it’s reasonable to assume that materialism is morally wrong, on its face. But then, didn’t your grandpa always want you to take good care of your things? What aspects of pride in one’s possessions constitutes thrift, responsibility, nurturing, etc, and what aspects are simply shallow pride? If one was highly prideful of their toaster and valued it above other things deemed valuable in their life, would they not be laughed at? Yet this same proposition is not only accepted for an object like one’s car, but it is encouraged. Somebody that doesn’t value their car is a loser, somebody that does value their toaster is a loser. Where is this line, the distinction? Where along the importance spectrum does an object become socially acceptable to obsess over?
Maybe no objects should be in this category. Maybe we should all remember that even our home, that we pamper and insure and spend hours fantasizing about how to improve, is just a thing. And pride in that thing is somewhat pathetic.