Something I've been thinking about lately: pagan/witchie ethics.

I know that Wiccans have but one rule: An it Harm None, Do as Thou Wilt.

Do other pagan religions have a system of ethics?  If so, what are they?

And what do they mean in practical, real-world terms?

33 responses total.

        I dig Crowley's version (historical arguments aside):

        "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,
         Love is the law, love under will."

        Meaning, as I understand it, that the law is will, but in the
Crowleyan sense of the "higher will" (a concept I'm not sure I agree with,
but I can understand what is meant by it) - which is love, but not forced
or artificial in any sense.

Hm. That's not how I understand it, really.
The first line of Crowley, as I understand it, relies on a different
conception of will than the Wiccan Rede (which John seems to agree with).
  
"Will" in the Rede means, roughly, "want/desire". "Will" in Crowley means
"that which you are obliged to do, according to the nature of the universe"
(again, in agreement with John). 
  
So I guess that means I agree about 75% with John's interpretation. My
understanding, further, was that if everyone did their will -- what they were
destined/obliged/supposed to do -- then the world would be beautiful and
wonderful, but if they violated their Will then problems arose.
 
I guess my view of it downplays the "love" aspect.
  
Anyway, most Neopagan systems have something similar. The only exception that
pops immediately to mind is Satanism, though (a) not everyone would agree that
that's neopagan and (b) it's not as bad as everyone says. =}

        The Crowleyan sense of will isn't quite so ... fatalistic, though.
One's true will isn't so much of one's obligations, as one's true
wishes, above and beyond "untrue" wishes and the pettiness of the present
moment.

Try the Scientific Pantheism web site:

http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/index.htm

I strongly disagree with the idea that "Will" in the original intent of the
Wiccan Rede meant "want/desire".  Gerald was certainly in contact with
Crowley, and strongly inflluenced by some of his ideas, and he also meant
"magical Will"- the strong and true purpose of your deepest soul, that which
furthers your karmic purpose in this life, etc.  The arguement between them
would have been (sorry, can't quote specifics, I'm not *that* educated) about
whether the caveat of "harm none" is necessary or is excessively binding, or
if it helps to remind people of their responsibility as they work toward
discovering their "true will". Anyway, in both cases it's about personal
responsibility.

What Gardner's original intent was is moot, really, since the Rede is so
widely interpreted now as will=desire. 
  
Thanks, John, you're right, and explained it a lot better in #3.

Personally I think that the most critical part of the Rede is "An it 
harm none".

Too many people seem attracted to paganism in all it's flavours because 
of the "lack of rules" when it seems to me that paganism is potentially 
one of the most ethical worldviews around...

Pagan religions all have their credos, and while some rules overlap, others
do not.  I do however, grow tired of seeing people treat paganism as one big
religion rather than the many smaller ones it is.  I also know that my
ancestors would have followed the Rede to a point . . . being that one should
not harm another without first having a good reason.

Good point, Bjorn -- and my question really applies to all pagan religions,
though the answer will be different for every religion.

        Well, there's pagan non-Christian and there's pagan Irish-Celtic Wicca
and Witta. :)

Brighn, then it's ok for high school students to translate "wherefor", in
Romeo and Juliet, as "where" since everyone does it?...I guess I'm stubborn
enough, or optimistic enough, or something, to keep working for deeper (more
accurate?) understanding of language.

Bjorn, I'm not sure your ancestors would have thought in terms of doing
minimal harm.  For the Norse and Celtic hero cultures, and probably other
heroic cultures, more relevant values were about weighing personal honour;
does it increase one's own honour to take the risk of challenging someone of
equal or greater "honour price", and if one should lose, can one pay or is
it worth loss of status through becoming a client/debtor.  Challenging or
harming those of lower "honour price" is make less likely since it has an
attendant loss of personal honour/position.  Values are about boldness, wit,
eloquence, physical strength and beauty, truth, honour, respect of the gods,
etc. more than about harming none or about humility or tact or anything like
that.

Jazz, there's pagan in its original meaning; "people of the (local) land"
which came to mean "country folk, hicks" as those who followed the old ways
got relegated to out of the way places, which came to mean non-Christians once
that newer religion became the state religion, and is nowadays extended to
mean non-monotheist or non- Judeo/Christian/Muslim.  Then there's
Wiccan-influenced neo-pagan or other Western neo-pagan.  Wicca is not Celtic
although many neo-pagans use Celtic names for the gods and festivals.  Celtic
reconstructionism is, like it or not, mostly neo-pagan.  Ditto the American
druidic groups.  Also the pop-celtoid traditions like Witta or Pecti-wicca
or "American Welsh" or whatever.  Now, no where in this listing do we have
a place for the ceremonial magical paths (which may not choose to call
themselves religions), or pagan faiths which are not "neo" anything such as
the Hindu traditions, Native American, etc.  If we are asking about values,
we would have to ask in those directions, too- very different ones.

While I certainly agree with you, I was merely trying to add to the
conversation in the direction it had taken, which seemed to be about the
prevention of harm to others.  Still, you have good points, and I have some
honour which I am trying to regain - ironically, most of it lost right here
on Grex.

Let's go back a bit. In my first coven, when I was a student here, we chose
our rule from Rabellais' Abbe de Theleme -- I've forgotten the old French but
it was "Do what you will." This was voulez, which could also be translated
"wish." For Rabelais, who was an ex-monk, this meant getting away from long
lists of rules, which could be manipulated by anyone for destructive, hateful,
etc., purposes, and back to the notion that a really good person doesn't need
rules to follow. This was what Nietzsche was saying, and of course Croweley
took it from this antinomian tradition. The idea all along has been to train
the will, so you recognize the right path when you come to it. Rules are more
hindrance than help. What about Gardner's "An it harm none"? I take this as
a piece of public relations that really wasn't needed -- to let the world know
that we weren't bad witches trying to blast good people. At the same time,
this rule only caused trouble for us back when we were doing rituals to stop
the serial rapist -- of course he had to be stopped, even if it meant harming
him! Similarly with the ritual recently on the night before the Klan rally,
when a few of my friends were establishing a circle of protection around teh
City Hall. If protecting some people happens to harm others, should we forget
about protecting them?

        Kami, that's very true, but I don't think that there are modern
Celtic traditions that aren't reconstructionist.  Perhaps there's a grove of
druids hidden somewhere in a misty vale, but I somehow doubt it (it'd be easy
to recognize them from their haircut, anyways).

Kami, you're talking about apples and oranges. Gardner may well have menat
"hhigher purpose" or somesuch, as much as Shakespeare meant "why" with
"wherefore." However, last I checked, Romeo and Juliet wasn't being used as
the foundation for a modern, active religious system. The Rede is.
functionally speaking, what's most relevant is how a tenet is being used
*today.*

John, good points all.  As to the "harm none" clause hampering our actions,
well- yes.  It makes you stop and *think*.  For folks who consider thought
to be action, who consider our actions and choices to have tangible effects
in the universe, it's pretty darn important to be *sure* we have chosen the
best course of action at any time.  Which means not going off half-cocked,
even against a serial rapist.  We're left asking what it is we truly want,
what helps further our individual and collective spiritual growth.  Is it
punishing this creep, or is it being safe?  Retribution feels good, in the
moment.  But it seldom really works as a long-term deterent.  The goal, I
think, was actually the protection and healing of the women who had been or
might later be harmed by this and other slimeballs.  That is not the same
thing as causing a permanent burning itch in this one asshole's testicles,
how ever much we might desire to...<g>

Jazz, I think there *are* modern celtic-derived groups wich are not
reconstructionist, in that they don't really give a fig for accuracy, but
borrow the names and run off in their own direction, using fantasy-based
religion, maybe a bit of Tolkien's elvish, their own inspiration, and some
stuff from popular authors.  It might work quite well for them, but it's not
Celtic.

Brighn, you are taking a descriptive approach, I'm taking a prescriptive one.
A valid difference, there's room for both of us within the neopagan
traditions.  I just wish we could close the gap- at least the communication
gap- between the trad groups and the eclectic groups.

I am nwe to the wiccan religon but so far i really love it.  It offers
everything i've been looking for in a religo9nand doesn't judge people.  Plus
you can practivce alone or with acoven..

Welcome, Dramer.  Are you also new to Grex or just to the Synthesis
conference?
If I may ask, where did you begin to find out about paganism and Wicca, and
what books have you been reading?    Since this item is specifically about
"ethics", I'm wondering if you've run across Robin Wood's lovely book on
Ethics, _What...When...If_ (hope I got that title right).  It's sometimes a
bit chancey to find, since she self-published and distributes it largely by
a network of friends.  It asks a lot of useful questions and gives a person
some lovely guidance in thinking through them.

John,  I disagree that it's necessary to cause harm sometimes.  

In the case of the serial rapist, influencing him to stop or be caught in no
way harms him.  It may be that in paying his debt to society he will lose his
freedom, but that isn't harm done him by those wishing him to be stopped,
that's the outcome of his own decision to rape.

And influencing him to stop his actions, if not defined too closely by the
ritual, can actually be doing a benevolence -- perhaps he will be stopped by
finding psychiatric help or lose his desire to strike out and cause pain.

I think it's extremely important to leave the details of an outcome to the
wisdom of the Universe and to work for a result "for the good of all and with
the free will of all".

(Well, OK, in the case of the insane, I might leave off the free will part. 
The rapist most likely didn't want to stop -- though it was to his benefit to
be stopped, karmickly, anyway.)

For instance, if you have an ongoing feud with a cantakerous neighbor, it might
be very tempting to try banishing him or maybe even something more extreme. 
But working for a peaceable end to the feud is a far better idea.  Afte all
there are several possible outcomes that end the feud with harm to none.  Maybe
he'll get a job offer in a far city - -where he's been wanting to live for some
time.  Maybe *you'll* get a chance to live someplace far more appealing or an
offer on your house far above market.  Maybe the two of you will find some
common ground and come to a truce over whatever issue was the contentious
point.  

All end the problem, which was the real goal in the first place.

or maybe a simple, "fuck off," would suffice.

        When it comes to the necessity or non-necessity of violence, I've been
strongly influenced by Heinlien's viewpoint - force has solved far more issues
than "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil", and "truth" or "lies", and will
continue to for the forseeable future.  If a group is not prepared to use
force, then there are other groups that are, and will consequently be
practiced in the use of force, who will be more than happy to take over those
groups that do not.  Non-violence is an evolutionary dead end.

Tell that to Ghandi.

Can't.  Sombody shot him.

<grin>  eah, I know, and King, too.  But they sure made a difference while
they were here.

        Would they have made such a difference if they'd not represented the
median between violent protesters and non-violent or violent reactionaries?
Has there ever been a wholly successful non-violent movement that would refuse
to defend itself if attacked?

Non-violence was a noble idea, but I always thought the reason it
worked on the British in India was that the British were getting
exhausted and demoralized over the whole thing anyway.  

Thoreau's idea in "Civil Disobedience" seems highly reasonable.  There
are two main parts to it.  First, "if the law requires you to become
the agent of injustice to another person, break the law."  For example,
if your tax money is being used to pay for the chains in which fugutive
slaves are returned to their masters, don't pay your taxes.  The second
part says, "rather than run amok against the government, I preferred
to let it run amok against me, it being the desperate party."  Meaning,
when they come to take you to prison for not paying your taxes, don't
try to resist.  Understand and accept that your choice is pay your 
taxes or go to prison, and that prison is the only choice that won't
bring disgrace down on you.

I should read some Thoreau...I must have been influenced by people who had
because that soudns very familiar and right to me.

        Jefferson had some similar - though probably more practical ideas.

Jefferson just happened to be president, while Thoreau was living in Emerson's
house and making pencils for a living. Compare Thoreau's cabin with Montecello
to see the difference. Yet, read Thoreau, who is very much needed today. "The
mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation," and he pointed a way out of
desperation. Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman, Jefferson -- all of them were looking
for a way to lead more meaningful lives. But we shouldn't neglect the fact
that Thoreau's great hero was John Brown, who led a very violent rebellion
against the U.S. Government in an effort to free the slaves. Was John Brown
more successful than Gandhi?

        Was Ghandi all that successful?

        How should success be measured, except that it do the most good for
all, great women and men have come beyond love and grief to the beneifit of
us all.

        I'd think that Buckminster Fuller would be hailed as the ultimate
in success then;  he's given us critical-path thinking, clean energy, cheap
housing for the future, several models of how to achieve paradise within
our time, from the standpoint of previous generations.

Who else would you name, as being successful at creating positive change?

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss