I stated below that:

This hedonistic consequentialism involves a closely-related individualism, at least in the United States, which states that no person can judge another person’s pleasure or pain, such that there is no objective standard for pleasure or pain (a utilitarian calculus, as it has been called).

I am reading an interesting book (don’t worry - I’ll get back to my point there…) by Tom Morris called, “Making Sense of it All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life.” In one interesting passage, Morris notes:

Something has meaning if and only if it is endowed with meaning or significance by a purposive personal agent or group of such agents.

And further:

Meaning is never intrinsic; it is always derivative….If my life is to have meaning (or a meaning), it thus must derive its meaning from some sort of purposive, intentional activity. It must be endowed with meaning.

Now, I suppose the question is, what if we are unable to endow our lives with meaning? That is, we are incapable of making a purposeful, intentional activity in relation to them? I think in this particular instance of the severely mentally handicapped, the aged with mental handicaps, the unborn, and the like - or even children, who are still unordered enough that meaning is fragmented. What of the meaning for their lives?

It seems to me that we, those who can direct our lives purposefully, are called to give meaning to them. To a mother, an unborn child should have meaning. She is the only one who can directly endow it with meaning, for she literally holds its life within her. But, this is only the most obvious example.

Of course, the question of meaning, of purpose, implies nothing of good or bad, simply direction or choice. The problem with the hedonistic individualistic consequentialist mode (told you I’d bring it back) in which we find ourselves in is that if someone has attached a purpose to their life that is wrong, misdirected, or, bluntly, evil, we are often powerless to do anything about it. I think most people have heard the response, to paraphrase, “So what if you think it’s wrong - who are you to say?”

And, the massive consequences of this statement, and all of its attendant attitudes, and all of its attendant philosophies, continue to rock our culture and will continue to do so. For, how could one ideologically oppose any evil, any wrongdoing, which is that which gives meaning to someone or some people, when ears are stopped before the argument begins…when speech itself is deafened by deliberate silence?

A friend has cautioned that in my previous post on the speech of Saruman, some might have interpreted that as comparing Obama to the anti-Christ or the Dark Lord in entirety. I would limit that, however, to the abuse of the gift of speech towards evil ends. Obama says many things which I deem imprudent, but not evil. However, he does say some things that are truly evil, particularly in regard to abortion as an inherent right. Obama has been gifted with an extraordinary ability to speak well and intelligently (as I do not believe that McCain has). Therefore, he abuses this gift when he uses it unvirtuously, both to promote evil ends and to attempt to convince others that this evil end is the right course of action.

-J.

Among Catholics, it is a never-ending debate on how one is to live life. I found the following lesson from the Desert Fathers edifying:

Also there were Paesius and Isaias, sons of a Spanish merchant. When their father died, they divided the estate they held, namely five thousand coins, clothes, and slaves. They deliberated and planned together. “Brother, what kind of life shall we lead? If we become merchants, such as our father was, we will still be entrusting our work to others. Then we would risk harm at the hands of pirates on the high seas. Come, let us take up the monastic life so that we may profit by our father’s goods and still not lose our souls.”

The prospect of monastic life pleased them, but they found themselves in disagreement. For when they had divided the property, they each had in mind to please God, by taking different ways of life.

Now the one shared everything among the monasteries, churches, and prisons; he learned a trade so that he might provide bread for himself and he spent his time at ascetic practices and prayer. The other, however, made no distribution of his share, but built a monastery for himself and took in a few brethren. Then he took in every stranger, every invalid, every old man, and every poor one as well, setting up three or four tables every Saturday and Sunday. In this way he spent his money

After they were both dead, various pronouncements were made about them as though they had both been perfect. Some preferred one, some the other. Then rivalry developed among the brethren in regard to the eulogies. They went to the blessed Pambo and entrusted the judgment to him, thinking to learn from him which was the better way of life. He told them, “Both were perfect. One showed the work of Abraham; the other, that of Elias.”

One faction said, “By your feet, we implore you, how can they be equal?” And this group considered the ascetic the greater, and insisted that he did what the Gospel commended, selling all and giving to the poor, and every hour both day and night carried the cross and followed the Savior even in his prayers. But the others argued heatedly, saying the Isaias had shared everything with the needy and even used to sit on the highways and gather together the oppressed. Not only did he relieve his own soul, but many others as well by tending the sick and helping them.

Abba Pambo told them, “Again I say to you, they are both equal. I firmly insist to each of you that the one, if he had not lived so ascetically, would not by worthy to be compared with the goodness of the other. As for the other, he refreshed strangers, and thereby himself as well, and even if he appeared to carry the load of toil, he had also its relief thereafter. Wait until I have a revelation from God, and then come back and learn it

They returned some days later and he told them, “I saw both of them standing the Paradise in the presence of God.”