Pagans and "Morality"

[Arion]

It seems to me that a lot of Pagans are really lost when it comes to morality. A lot of young Pagans are self-taught eclectics who basically make up their own religions using a bit of this, and a bit of that, and there seems to be no structure to their beliefs. A close friend of mine is an eclectic Wiccan Pagan Buddhist, and she follows the Wiccan Rede. The thing is, though, she's rather extreme with it. She's a vegetarian, which is fine, so am I actually. The weird thing I noticed when I first met her a few years ago, is that she won't kill bugs, she'll pick them up and put them outside. At first I thought it was nice, but when a person is morally opposed to killing insects, I think they're taking "harm none" a bit too far. She's kind of snobbish in thinking that she has higher moral standards than most, and she probably isn't the only one. I love her dearly, and she isn't always so silly, I just think there is a lack of quality information and role models within Paganism. Most of what we learn has to come from cheesy books, which is partly why I couldn't take Wicca or Witchcraft any longer. It might be that these people who are overtly "moral" with the Harm None thing, are trying to make themselves out to be as "good" and "moral" as Christianity.

Then you have the opposite side of the spectrum where people are trying to escape morality completely and don't really have a sense of right and wrong. Maybe they see Paganism as an escape from the rigid morality of mainstream religions.

I'm not a big fan of prescribed morality at all really, and I don't consider myself "moral". I do consider myself very ethical, and I think ethics are important. Morality just seems to be a bunch of rules and regulations made up by other people that they force on you and people try and follow rigidly. Ethics are more of a general guideline of decent behaviour. A lot of new age Wiccans see the "Harm None" Rede as a sort of a commandment, and take it way out of context. I think people need to be better educated on issues like ethics and morality when it comes to Pagan paths, otherwise they end up taking everything literally and it becomes a mess.

[Carla O'Harris]

I would also encourage sophisticated conversations about ethics. I think those are important.

An anthology could be interesting --- a kind of "Pagan Moral Philosophy" text that collects different perspectives on various ethical dilemmas from pagans who apply their pagan philosophies, theologies, and ethics to those specific ethical systems. It could have many case examples of really difficult situations, with questions about how the reader would apply the relevant principles at hand.

Theoretically, there is no reason why such a discussion could not take place within a popular book, although it obviously could not overwhelm other aspects.

[Amythyst]

Morality is like art, it is subjective.

[RainInanna]

Just wanted to point out this thread almost seems like an echo of the discussion going on in another thread already - http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=146816

Thought you might be interested in that one as well. As I said over there, I agree with you that serious considerations and discussions of one's ethics and how they reflect one's spirituality are necessary, IMHO. Refusing to think about new ways, or downright ignoring ethical principles, is just letting yourself down, again IMHO.

Ethical guidelines are pretty common in most Pagan religions, and especially when you are talking about reconstructionism, you are talking about a guideline that was a necessary extension of religious beliefs. For example, understanding ma'at and the importance of words is an essential part of truly coming to understand Kemeticism as a whole.

I have been reading a book called A Witch's 10 Commandments which does discuss ethical principles within Wicca and Paganism in general, and how they compare to the 10 commandments. So far it is pretty basic, however I appreciate the idea of presenting the discussion to beginners for consideration. In The Circle Within by Dianne Sylvan she talks about "graces", which are basically noble ideas one tries to use as guideposts. Phyllis Curott tends to talk a bit about how Wiccan beliefs inform it's ethics as well in her book, Witchcrafting.

To me it's pretty simple - I choose spirituality *because* it allows me to become closer to the Sacred. If I want to do that everytime I act, I like to have clear ideas on how my ethics are expressed and how I keep in step with them. Rules such as "harm none" can help me get back on track or focus my thoughts, if I've spent the time and effort thinking about them and how and when to apply them. It doesn't encourage me not to think; in fact it encourages me to ALWAYS think about what I'm doing and what it says about my beliefs.

[RainInanna]

Wanted to add that, for me, acting in step with my spiritual beliefs is VERY important to my spirituality right now. Every day I pray in thanks and to ask for assistance in acting compassionately, patiently, carefully, etc., to manifest the Sacred in myself and honour it in others. What a huge loss it would be if I just disregarded spiritual ethics because a minority use them to judge others.

[SoulFire]

It seems to me that a lot of Pagans are really lost when it comes to morality. A lot of young Pagans are self-taught eclectics who basically make up their own religions using a bit of this, and a bit of that, and there seems to be no structure to their beliefs.

I'd have to agree. This is the problem I have with so-called eclectic Wicca in general.


A close friend of mine is an eclectic Wiccan Pagan Buddhist, and she follows the Wiccan Rede. The thing is, though, she's rather extreme with it. She's a vegetarian, which is fine, so am I actually. The weird thing I noticed when I first met her a few years ago, is that she won't kill bugs, she'll pick them up and put them outside.

That sounds more like Buddhist thinking to me.


I just think there is a lack of quality information and role models within Paganism. Most of what we learn has to come from cheesy books, which is partly why I couldn't take Wicca or Witchcraft any longer. It might be that these people who are overtly "moral" with the Harm None thing, are trying to make themselves out to be as "good" and "moral" as Christianity.

Interesting! I agree about the cheesy books (and the connection to Xtian "morality" is an interesting thought), but I think maybe Wicca (and Witchcraft) have gotten a bad rap unfairly due to a few bad apples spoiling the rest of the book market. I know of publishers who won't put out anything that isn't beginner level. OTOH, there are publishers that make a point to try to offer something beyond Wicca 101. I wouldn't have a problem with the beginner books if they all weren't so repetitive and lame. But if the standards are ever going to change, people have to demand excellence, or else publishers will continue putting out crap. Unfortunately, it seems to me that newer Pagans, younger Pagans in particular, are not as discerning. Just MHO.


I'm not a big fan of prescribed morality at all really, and I don't consider myself "moral". I do consider myself very ethical, and I think ethics are important. Morality just seems to bea bunch of rules and regulations made up by other people that they force on you and people try and follow rigidly. Ethics are more of a general guideline of decent behaviour. A lot of new age Wiccans see the "Harm None" Rede as a sort of a commandment, and take it way out of context. I think people need to be better educated on issues like ethics and morality when it comes to Pagan paths, otherwise they end up taking everything literally and it becomes a mess.

Ethics and morality mean basically the same thing, and I've heard Pagans make the same argument that you're making about ethics being a set of rules and regulations. Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ethics) defines ethics as:

1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> -- often used in plural but sing. or plural in constr. <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics> b plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c : a guiding philosophy d : a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>
3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

Morality is defined as:

1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

The difference is that ethics tend to be more codified (which is how you described morality). Whereas, morals are more about "good" vs "bad". This changes depending on society and the era in which people live. Here's a good article explaining the difference between values, ethics, and morality (http://changingminds.org/explanations/values/values_morals_ethics.htm). Here's another (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/009050.htm). See also morality and ethics at Wikipedia.

"Morals aren't cheap."
--Chastity Pariah, Elvira, Mistress of the Dark

[David19]

I think i've seen (or rather read, as i'm not in the real life Pagan community) people take things like the '3 fold law' to the extremes, etc.

And, there are also those that seem to think being moral is 'only a Christian thing', etc.

To me, i do agree with Carla, when she said it should be discussed - as not many Pagans or authors go into it, and i don't just mean the '3 fold law' as that's been done to death already, but a serious discussion about morality (and not something made up like the 3 fold 'law').

And, to say when it could be acceptable, to basically kick some ass, magically or whatever (IMO, it would be perfectly acceptable to do some serious 'dark'/'black' magic to kill someone, if you were Jewish (or whatever) in the Holocaust, and had Nazi's hunting you down, or if you or a family member or friend was raped, or against a pediphile).

BTW, cool thread :).

[Elderbush]

Books on ethics do exist but perhaps they are more trad specific. I know we have one - The Ethical Eclectic by Kattryn MacMorgan-Douglas - and perhaps ethics are taught in other traditions, too.

[Vincent Verthaine]

From : THE BOOK OF CHAOS AND IT'S VIRTUES (http://verthaine.sphosting.com/BOE10.html)

Discordian Ethics

Section 1: Introduction
Syllogism 1A
Confusion causes people to think
Thinking is good
Confusion is good

Such is the art of Discordian Ethics. Confusion causes freedom, a state in which one must strive toward resolution. Confusion fulfills potential. Confusion allows individuals to use their respective brains. Discordians, above all things or almost all things, prefer the general public to use their brains, that they can become intelligent creatures instead of the domesticated primates the output-only television determines them to be. This revelation is the key to all proper ethical and moral thought.

Section 1: Theoretical Rhetoric

There is but one duty. There is but one thing that determines rightness in moral conduct. There is but one commandment. There is but one obligation, liability, onus, burden, load, responsibility, decree, dictate, accountableness, charge, weight, encumbrance, pressure. That duty, commandment, obligation, liability, onus, burden, load, responsibility, decree, dictate, accountableness, charge, weight, encumbrance, pressure is freedom.

Freedom is not that which the natural rights advocates would have you believe. Freedom is not a natural right, it is a natural event which occurs from it's own essence. There is no freedom that dictates the right to do one thing, for if it gives the right to do one thing, it must also dispose of the right to do the opposite. Simpler, natural RIGHTS always imply natural WRONGS, and if freedom is a natural right, imposition is a natural wrong, and if there are natural wrongs, there cannot be complete freedom. Furthermore, freedom is said to occur in nature due to a separate reason, namely, the existence of mankind. This is an incorrect postulation. Freedom does not necessarily exist for mankind (i.e., there can exist a man who is not free), as it does not necessarily exist for birds, trees, or algae. It does not exist because mankind exists. This is evident in the fact that it lies syntactically away from the subject/object connexion. The sentence "The bird ate the worm" does not imply that the bird was free to eat the worm. Likewise, "the boy swam across the river" does not indicate any particular freedom, the indicator is one of action. It can be said, therefore, that mankind's existence does cause to occur action, but does not cause to occur freedom.

Western culture has also done a great deal to derange the meaning of freedom. Among Westerners, there is a common misconception deriving from the incidental association of the concept "freedom" with the concept "freedom of choice". This is what the Western culture has valuated - a freedom that is conceptualized by the ability to distinguish, separate and select one particular object as higher, better, or greater than another. This is not freedom, but freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is a specific type of freedom, but it is not what freedom is. All readers are urged to perform the Disassociation of Ideas between freedom, choice and freedom of choice. (For more information or praxis disassociation of ideas, see Wilson, R.A. The Illuminati Papers.)

Yet another flaw comes from yet another noble and respected source. Webster's dictionary's definition of freedom is, as expected, "the state or quality of being free" and, also as expected, it gives a plethora of definitions for free. Most of these definitions have one thing in common, the word "not" - not being confined, not being restricted, not being held back. These are perfect definitions for what freedom is not; and freedom is not what these definitions are.

This is not natural-rights account of freedom. This is not Western culture account of freedom. This is not Webster's account of freedom. Yet, this is what freedom is.

Section 1: The struggle of freedom

To say "I am free" is an instantaneous denial. It is never the case that any one is free, but it is the case that all should be striving toward it. Freedom embodies itself in that strive, in that yearning for accomplishment. Where there is purpose or desire, Spanish cajones, a need with passion for advancement, there is freedom. To see one's self as far in front, ahead, and striving to reach that front is where freedom can be seen. When the front is reached, the self will have gone farther, and the struggle continues. This is why freedom is unattainable; when freedom is thought to have been reached, it has actually been driven further away. Freedom is an inclined plane - when one stands still, one moves backward. Mankind has been standing still for how many centuries, now?

Grok:

It is a good analogy to picture freedom as an inclined plane, but it goes somewhat beyond that. Man is at the base of this triangle, and the light or idea of freedom appears at the top. Man starts up the triangle side, yearning toward the idea of freedom, and in this struggle, he has attained freedom. He never can reach the apex, the idea or appearance of freedom, but at the same time, in his struggle to be free he becomes free and is only free in that struggle. When man stops to say "I am free; I have reached the top and I have freedom," he lies; because if his struggle stops he stands still, and if he stands still he slides down the side, in an opposing direction to his freedom.

To fulfill potential, is freedom.

Section 1: Formulation of an ethical theory

If it is understood to the reader that the Discordian belief maintains that freedom is the end for the means, and that right conduct is determined by actions that promote freedom, SHe is wrong. Actions that promote freedom are the actions that Discordians wish to accomplish themselves, but these actions are not essential because of moral obligation, they are merely free acts in themselves caused in the individual's struggle of freedom. It is true that the ethical theory is based on the struggle of freedom; but, if it was that right conduct was the promotion of freedom, there must first have been an absolute sense that freedom was the greatest thing to promote (in some sense similar to Mill's happiness), thereby denying that freedom was unattainable, in that if it wasn't attainable it could not have been the greatest of all things, as there would always have been one thing possibly greater, an attainable freedom. This theory would have run concurrent with the natural rights theory, in that to say "I am free" would have been not only possible, but also an accepted state of human nature. This not being the case, the Discordian Theory of Ethics will now be built.

To build an ethical theory, there must first be a basis of understanding, a basis in which all ethical theories have in common, a basis on which ethical theories are compared. So stated, it is understood that normative ethics allows us to give a rule of right conduct, and supportive reasons for that conduct. To begin:

Discordian ethics should therefore describe in some way right conduct, as in what one "ought" to do in a given situation. In a sense it does, and in a sense it does not. The free man sees his struggle and reacts in a way unique and individual to himself. His duty is the struggle of freedom, in which he attains the unattainable. His moral conduct would be "right", because he has done so. Of the unfree man, however, does this make his conduct morally wrong? Is a person who is not striving for freedom being unethical?

Simply put, nothing is morally wrong. Neither the free man nor the unfree man can perform an act that is morally wrong. All acts have a potential, and where a person strives to fulfill it's potential, a moral wrong cannot occur, since freedom is being asserted. In the unfree man, an act can occur and a potential can be fulfilled, but the spirit of the act, the emotion, the passion, will be different; in this case, no freedom is being asserted, so it would seem that this is a moral wrong. But who would hold an unfree man morally responsible for his actions? This act is not a moral wrong, it is simply not morally right. Acts which neither hinder nor promote freedom have no basis in it and, therefore, are excluded from the determination of morality altogether.

It would appear, however, that an action which is done by a free man in order to worsen his or another's freedom would be morally wrong. As said before, EVERY act has a potential, and where a person strives to fulfill that potential, a moral wrong cannot occur. The consequences of that action are immaterial and irrelevant, the action itself is what determines rightness in moral conduct. Moral wrongs, then, would not exist in any action, despite it's consequences.


Section 1: Applying the Discordian Theory of Ethics
Systems are made up of Order and Disorder. A system that contains only ordered information is incomplete, as is a system that contains only disordered entropy. (This is not incomplete as a car without an engine is incomplete, but incomplete as a hydrogen atom is without an neutron. It is not "unfinished", it simply "does not contain all parts".) The brain is such a system. If the brain receives only ordered information, it would never be capable of filling-in- the-blanks. If the brain only receives static images of disordered entropy, it will never be able to learn.
This is the driving force behind many Discordian practices. Knowing that the general public has an excellent idea of order but no clue as to how to appreciate disorder, disordered information is sent randomly into society in various forms to compete with the opposition.

The effect of disorder on an ordered structure can serve two functions. First, the ordered structure can collapse, unable to incorporate the new data, or second, the new data can be integrated and the ordered structure modified. (There are other possibilities of the order-disorder integration, but these are not useful for Discordians. For example, the disordered information could be discarded by the ordered structure, and thus rendered useless. This kind of treatment has been given for years by the government on topics like LSD research and some branches of quantum physics.) Of these functions, the second seems to be the more desirable. The breakdown of a structure is sometimes deemed necessary, but more often than not it appears as though the structure should at least remain intact, and new information just be gradually accepted into the structure. This would give a greater "value" to the whole structure, as it would be more readily able to accept further disordered information.

The application for a Discordian, then, would be to force disordered information into a society without the society invalidating itself, so that it gives either the society as a whole or individual members of that society the chance for greater freedom. Whether the potentials of those freedoms hinder or contradict each other is irrelevant, the freedom itself is the aim of the Discordian's actions.

(Note, however, that this is not the only action that can be derived from the theory; there are other possible courses of action in, it seems, an infinite number. Since any given action has a certain potential, if there are an infinite number of possible actions, then there are an infinite number of possible potentials that could be filled. The ability for enhancing freedom by composing disordered information is merely one of these possible potentials, and is not part of ethics itself.)

To understand how freedom is enhanced by the integration of disorder, please re-read the first two paragraphs of this section, on systems' order and disorder. When disordered information is sent into an incomplete ordered system, it can be integrated, and this integration can only take place freely. Until an individual notices the potential of this disordered information, the potential cannot be fulfilled. The ordered information will deal only with other ordered information, since it would not be able to understand the disorder. Only after an individual realizes that this disorder can be used will it be integrated into the system. This is a free integration, the only kind of integration possible.

Section 1: Application in Syllogistic Form
The application of the theory can be stated in the form of a syllogism.

Syllogism 1A2A

Integration of disorder leads to freedom
Freedom is good
Integration of disorder is good

This form can be used to place more specific subjects and predicates. For example, Syllogism 1A at the top of this report dealt with freedom in thought, with the disorder being confusion. The following syllogism further examines this. Syllogism 1A2A2B

Heresy exhibits religious freedom
Religious freedom is good
Heresy is good

Here, the form of freedom is religious belief, and the opposing disorder would be, literally, heresy. The understanding would be that organized religion can only be conquered by disorganizing religion.

Section 1: Conclusion

There are many controversies: the definition of freedom, the preference of disorder, the number of possible potentials, and others. They are all linked together by the Discordian Theory of Ethics, which shows that:

- Rightness of an action is based on freedom of the action,
- There are no moral wrongs
- Consequences are irrelevant to ethics
- Actions which have no basis in freedom have no basis in ethics

It is asked of the reader to delve into these controversies in an effort to draw them to their reasonable conclusion, whether that means 'solved' or not. Papers will be written, pamphlets distributed, the usual lot, but until the Discordian Theory of Ethics is studied and known by every individual possible, the cause seems lacking. The Discordian Theory provides an alternative to the bogus theories that were it's predecessors; please read, write, listen, speak, and generally aid the cause.


Ethics is what you create for yourself.
Morality is what others try to ram down your throat.

[Sharedaughter]

Ethics is what you create for yourself.
Morality is what others try to ram down your throat.

_handclapp Very well put, and describes my views with a brevity and clearness I was having trouble coming up with.:thumbsup:

Glo

[RainInanna]

Whereas, morals are more about "good" vs "bad". This changes depending on society and the era in which people live.

Thank you for sharing those links, they are most interesting. I wonder if the fact that morals are about "good" vs "bad" is what the concern is here. Just because it seems to necessitate ideas of "good" and "bad" and for many, actions and people just don't fit into one or the other. That dichotomy just doesn't fit into a lot of Pagan religions, and some seem to feel trying to bend concepts into "good" and "bad" makes it too black and white. People who are told their actions are "good" or "bad" may take this as more of a value judgment.

[Nitefalle]

I think that to speak of "good" and "bad" is quite irrelevant as, in this case, "good" = socially acceptable. In this time and place, people think it is "good" to recycle because it is the socially acceptable, "environmentally responsible" thing to do, and this society places emphasis on being "environmentally responsible". Does that mean that people who don't recycle are "bad"? No, they are just not in line with the societal norm of this time.

I think that what really needs to be stressed in the Pagan Community as a value is personal responsibility. Full realization of the consequences of one's actions and the willingness to see that through, come what may and not squirming out of it by saying "Oh, but I had 'good' intentions" or some such other rot. THOUGHT before ACTION.

[Xirian]

Ethics is what you create for yourself.
Morality is what others try to ram down your throat.
As I mentioned when you originally posted this, I like how this is put, and I enjoyed reading the "Discordian Ethics" again.

[Vincent Verthaine]

I think that to speak of "good" and "bad" is quite irrelevant as, in this case, "good" = socially acceptable. In this time and place, people think it is "good" to recycle because it is the socially acceptable, "environmentally responsible" thing to do, and this society places emphasis on being "environmentally responsible". Does that mean that people who don't recycle are "bad"? No, they are just not in line with the societal norm of this time.

I think that what really needs to be stressed in the Pagan Community as a value is personal responsibility. Full realization of the consequences of one's actions and the willingness to see that through, come what may and not squirming out of it by saying "Oh, but I had 'good' intentions" or some such other rot. THOUGHT before ACTION.

While I very much agree,I would like to add that what society finds acceptable at any given time may not necessarily be good.

Slavery was socially acceptable in this country for 200+ years.
Discrimination against blacks was socially acceptable up to the 1970's.
Denying homosexuals the right to marriage is socially acceptable today.

Be very carefull that in trying to tow the societal norm,that one does not mindless robot slave to the status quo.

If being a "good citizen" means having to be a good fascist,a good bible-thumper,a good minorities-hater,a good jihadist,a good mass consumer,a good snitch,a good nazi,and a good puppet,I want nothing to do with society.

That is why the discordian catmas "Think for Yourself,Schmuck" ands "Question Authority" is central to discordian ethics and philosophy.

[SoulFire]

I think that to speak of "good" and "bad" is quite irrelevant as, in this case, "good" = socially acceptable.

Exactly. That was the point.


In this time and place, people think it is "good" to recycle because it is the socially acceptable, "environmentally responsible" thing to do, and this society places emphasis on being "environmentally responsible". Does that mean that people who don't recycle are "bad"? No, they are just not in line with the societal norm of this time.

I think that what really needs to be stressed in the Pagan Community as a value is personal responsibility. Full realization of the consequences of one's actions and the willingness to see that through, come what may and not squirming out of it by saying "Oh, but I had 'good' intentions" or some such other rot. THOUGHT before ACTION.

I was not advocating morals vs ethics (or vice versa, for that matter), but rather simply offering some definitions. Personally, I agree that what is labeled "good" is generally what is socially agreeable -- hence, in one of the article's I provided a link to it states that there is a social component to so-called morality, by definition.

Again, I was not endorsing any particular moral attitude, nor even morals in general, but was merely providing some links with further info, since some members seemed confused by the difference between "ethics" and "morality" (and there is a difference).

Personally, I prefer Value Theory or ethics over morals, but that's just MHO. I also agree with the statement about personal responsibility.

When I was starting out in the Craft over 20 years ago, personal responsibility was a basic value that we were all taught at the start. No Guilt, No Blame. But Personal Responsibility. Just my 2 copper.

[SoulFire]

Books on ethics do exist but perhaps they are more trad specific. I know we have one - The Ethical Eclectic by Kattryn MacMorgan-Douglas - and perhaps ethics are taught in other traditions, too.

Another one is Positive Magic by Marion Weinstein, which is non-trad specific. Marion has even been dubbed the "Ethics Witch".

When I was starting out in the late 70s/early 80s, our ethical guidelines were informed mainly by three books: The Complete Art of Witchcraft by Sybil Leek; and The Spiral Dance and Dreaming the Dark by Starhawk. There is a whole chapter on ethics in Dreaming the Dark, which goes beyond the simplistic "Law of Three". These are the books my teachers had me read. Today, I would also recommend reading the ethics chapter in Be a Goddess, or Jambalaya, to new students, in addition to the oldies.

Sybil gave us the 8 Tenets: Reincarnation, Balance, Harmony, Love, Trust, Humility, Tolerance and Learning, which she explained in depth in Complete Art. I committed these to memory when I was 16. Today, they would probably be viewed as dogma by the new generation of Pagans, but I never saw them that way.

Later, I learned a simplified version: Reincarnation, Cause & Effect, and Retribution (Law of Return). My former teacher called this the "Threefold Law" because it has three parts. (This definition seems unique to our tradition, as most Pagans today use the terms "Threefold Law" and "Law of Three" interchangeably.) As Craft elders Jo and James Dixon wrote:

“The tenets of Witchcraft are few but all-encompassing . . . :”

"Reincarnation – Mortality
"Cause and Effect – Magick
"Retribution – Morality

"Reincarnation enlightens the Witch to the fact that, as we come to this material world over and over in a series of learning periods, or lifetimes, we will eventually have to experience all things, be all things, understand all things. This creates a great tolerance for other viewpoints in the Witch.

"Cause & Effect, and an understanding of it, allows the Witch to see what makes the world work and how to live most efficiently. It gives them a great advantage in that it explains the working of Magick.

"Retribution shows the Witch, in graphic terms, that every thought one might have, every action one may take, is returned in like [emphasis mine] kind. This realization forms the basis of the Moral Code of the Witch."

I originally read this in an article my teacher gave me, titled "The Ancient Art", which was put out by the Witching Well Education & Research Center, ca 1980. I've recently learned that it was, in fact, written by Jo and James Dixon, two early Craft thealogians.

I prefer to call the third and last tenet the "Law of Return", as I dislike the word "Retribution". Also, I emphasize the word "like" in the last paragraph to show that it doesn't say anything about things coming back "three times". I do not believe in the "Law of Threefold Return" personally--IOW, I don't believe things happen to you three times over. But rather in like kind.

Anyway, my point is that there are books and articles on ethics studies out there for beginning students. Just my 2 copper again.

[noxtwice]

i won't kill spiders, i'll shoo them away or outside, but any other bug is fair game. oh except lady bugs, dragonflies and fireflies...

any other kind of bug is on my shit list when it's in my home. especially ants in the summer, i hate them.

[Zephyrstorm]

There's also When, Why... If by Robin Wood - which is a workbook for getting people to sit down and think about their ethics and design a personal code.

I also think it wise to get a base in the more commonly known study of Ethics - preferably via an intro to Ethics textbook. :)

[Pagan Warrior]

Aight ... here's my take on Ethics ... they don't really exist. When a group of people agree to behave within certain boundaries they have established ethics. Some might consider it to be immoral and unethical to associate with a Pagan, let alone BE one. It's very subjective & dynamic, and because of that they're not really easily defined. Even the Mormon church will sway within their own ethical boundaries by putting a little caveat in their system that says they will obey "the law of the land".

My views on killing bugs? What happens when you invade an anthill? They try to kill you. What happens when you invade a beehive? They try to kill you. What happens if you stumble accross a nest of scorpions? ... They try to kill you. I have NO problem killing a bug that invades my space.

[Fiamma]

It seems to me that a lot of Pagans are really lost when it comes to morality. A lot of young Pagans are self-taught eclectics who basically make up their own religions using a bit of this, and a bit of that, and there seems to be no structure to their beliefs. A close friend of mine is an eclectic Wiccan Pagan Buddhist, and she follows the Wiccan Rede. The thing is, though, she's rather extreme with it. She's a vegetarian, which is fine, so am I actually. The weird thing I noticed when I first met her a few years ago, is that she won't kill bugs, she'll pick them up and put them outside. At first I thought it was nice, but when a person is morally opposed to killing insects, I think they're taking "harm none" a bit too far. She's kind of snobbish in thinking that she has higher moral standards than most, and she probably isn't the only one. I love her dearly, and she isn't always so silly, I just think there is a lack of quality information and role models within Paganism. Most of what we learn has to come from cheesy books, which is partly why I couldn't take Wicca or Witchcraft any longer. It might be that these people who are overtly "moral" with the Harm None thing, are trying to make themselves out to be as "good" and "moral" as Christianity.

Then you have the opposite side of the spectrum where people are trying to escape morality completely and don't really have a sense of right and wrong. Maybe they see Paganism as an escape from the rigid morality of mainstream religions.

I'm not a big fan of prescribed morality at all really, and I don't consider myself "moral". I do consider myself very ethical, and I think ethics are important. Morality just seems to be a bunch of rules and regulations made up by other people that they force on you and people try and follow rigidly. Ethics are more of a general guideline of decent behaviour. A lot of new age Wiccans see the "Harm None" Rede as a sort of a commandment, and take it way out of context. I think people need to be better educated on issues like ethics and morality when it comes to Pagan paths, otherwise they end up taking everything literally and it becomes a mess.


I don't think that morality is a bad thing. I also don't think it should be shoved down people's throats, and while some things, I think are fairly generally universal (Don't kill people, don't steal things, don't kick puppies, don't crack your gum), other things are subjective (for instance, sexual issues- as they pertain to consenting folks who are capable of making and understanding such decisions)

Different morals don't make us better people tha those who believe differently, though I think that everyone does think to some extent that theirs are right and at leasta little better than others' morals- if we didn't, why do we believe and do as we do?- the problem only comes in when you start to think and treat other peple as though they're lesser than you because they do differently. It's something to live by, not to lord over others.

Incidentally, I'm against smashing bugs too. But that's because I get grossed out by the "crunching" sound. I'm all for washing them down a sink drain or flushing 'em down the toilet though. (Hey...I live in the middle of Baltimore. We have all kinds of ickies crawling around our house...)

[Xirian]

Different morals don't make us better people tha those who believe differently, though I think that everyone does think to some extent that theirs are right and at leasta little better than others' morals- if we didn't, why do we believe and do as we do?
I don't know about most people, but subjective morals are based on perception and perspective, and they are right only as it pertains to me personally and not in regards to everyone else. I think that's why I believe that my morals are right, but only as it relates to me. If others have similar morals, it's not because they perceive they are right because of the same reasons that I do. I think it's all based on personal experience.


the problem only comes in when you start to think and treat other peple as though they're lesser than you because they do differently. It's something to live by, not to lord over others.
And as I've stated in other threads, this is a big issue for me when it comes to other people and their morals.

[Maverynthia]

What's so wrong with not wanting to kill insects? They have a right to live and are part of life. It upsets me that you think this is strange or eccentric. :(

[Carla O'Harris]

What's so wrong with not wanting to kill insects? They have a right to live and are part of life. It upsets me that you think this is strange or eccentric. :(

An excellent source in this regard is Joanne Elizabeth Lauck's The Voice of the Infinite In The Small : Re-Visioning the Insect-Human Connection (http://www.amazon.com/Voice-Infinite-Small-Re-Visioning-Insect-Human/dp/1570629595)

She discusses many indigenous/pagan mythologies that find numinous connections with insects. This is a very interesting and challenging book.

[Infinite Grey]

Killing insects is an necessity here... go to keep their populations in check :hahugh:

[Xirian]

My son is petrified of insects of any kind and when my family comes to visit me from Chicago, they are terrified as well, especially flying insects and I believe it's because they're simply not used to being around a lot of trees and seeing the type of bugs we have here. In those instances, I will accomodate them by killing them. In most cases, if it's a little spider in my son's room I tell him that they most likely won't bother him if he leaves them alone. Usually they're on the ceiling anyway. But now he's started killing them himself. I was terrified of spiders when I was young and I understand that my logic is not actually sinking in when he's already fearful as was the same with me when my mother would tell me the same thing.

[Cornflake_Girl8]

If I see a bee, wasp, yellow jacket, worf spider, or mosquito crawling on my person it will die! Even though killing spiders makes it rain. =)


But yes, I agree that a lot of pagans do what they think is popular to fit in and take things way out of context. I know of a few pagans who are anti-hunting, but with so little predators, there needs to be a way to keep deer populations in check. It's a matter of perspective when it comes right down to it.

[Arion]

What's so wrong with not wanting to kill insects? They have a right to live and are part of life. It upsets me that you think this is strange or eccentric. :(

It's not that, I was just using my Wiccan friend as an example of people who take the Wiccan Rede to the extreme and get an a moral high horse when it comes to killing the most insignificant life-forms. Bugs are creepy looking, and they can multiply like wildfire, so I don't feel sorry for them at all:p

[Carla O'Harris]

but with so little predators, there needs to be a way to keep deer populations in check. It's a matter of perspective when it comes right down to it.


ummm how about ... stop killing predators?? Predator and prey did fine long before humans ever appeared on the scene.

[David19]

ummm how about ... stop killing predators?? Predator and prey did fine long before humans ever appeared on the scene.

Humans are a predator (and prey too, if you think about it).

[Carla O'Harris]

Human carnivores are.

[Wolfpoet]

Human carnivores are.

Check your teeth sometime. Canines for tearing flesh, incisors for scraping flesh off bone and cutting, molars for crunching bones and various fruits/vegetables.

Humans are Omnivores and are predators, no different from Wolves in many respects.

[Diotima]

Ethics is an essential part of my Pagan path. I am modern Aristotelian when it comes to ethics, and though my moral beliefs differ sometimes a lot from what the majority of people seems to think, I can back them up quite well.
I believe that Aristotle was right when he defined ethics as a "study on how to become happy".

I consider moral rules as "rules of thumb": they are not to be obeyed blindly, but they may give some good ideas on what is the right course of action in most situations.

I don't believe that Wiccan Rede gets it quite right but that is another story.

I don't believe that it's right to kill any living being without a reason. If there is a reason, things start getting more complicated...