Harming none?

[TonePusher]

Okay I am not questioning Pagan faith but how far do we take one of our only rules of life......*Do as you will,if it harm none*
How far can we take this and when is it possible not to apply this.

E.g .It IS impossible to "harm none" as each breath or movement for that matter we kill thousands of microbes.Is this okay?
Of course it is!We cannot help it,can we?
And....

If we are say being attacked by an animal such as a bee (okay it kills itself anyway.Which brings me to a new pointless theory.)
Anyway back to being attacked,is it okay to harm it?As it harmed us.

Anyway this new pointless theory....
I belive it is the only animal in the world that dies after harming another creature, the bee.Atfer it stings it dies.
Is this a Pagan creature then?It aplies strongly to the threefold law,it aplies pain it then receives pain (death).Is there any Pagan association with the bee?


Thank you for wasting your time with me.

Remember *Do as you will,if it harm none.*

.***Blessed Be***.

[Myst]

Originally posted by TonePusher
Okay I am not questioning Pagan faith but how far do we take one of our only rules of life......*Do as you will,if it harm none*
How far can we take this and when is it possible not to apply this.

That's Wiccan, not Pagan. For instance, I don't follow that at all, and I know a lot of people here don't.

Secondly, obviously we cannot avoid harming some things some of the time (ie. little things in the air, ants perhaps, whatever). So it's important to make this law part of your life and think what it means to you. Amber wrote something great about this somewhere but I have to find it :)

An interesting discussion to bring up :D

[Theres]

i always take this to mean 'intentional harm'. we all leave a footprint as we go about our lives, stepping on bugs, defending ourselves from attack, etc. not to mention killing for food or shelter. that is unavoidable to a degree.
so to me, the Rede means leaving as small a footprint as possible.

[TonePusher]

Yes Myst I see my mistake I did mean to mention that the three fold law was Wiccan.Therefore making it directed at Wiccans ,although I am not Wiccan myself.
Sorry my mistake.
I always say I learn from my mistakes,but look where thats got me.LoL.:D

[Armitage]

Personally, I think it's a decent way to live in some respects. People could do with more concern for their fellow man. I also think that in others it's silly. If you come at me with the express purpose of hurting me I won't hesitate to defend myself. Even the best path has moments when it doesn't work.

[Ravens_Tears]

Taoism, Buddhism, Zen also have the same basic tenet.... and it all comes down to karma.
I too believe that "an' it harm no one, do what thou will" is more in reference to intentions or malice. Armitage is absolutely right, it is a decent way to live :)

[ChelleOfShadows]

I always took the harm to none to be in the use of magick.

If I were being attacked, I can only believe I would fight for myself. I know I would kill or die trying for my children.

OK I admit you have given me something to seriously think about. I do believe the "Do unto others as you would have done to you." I just always figured that for my everyday life.

You then have the what goes around comes around. And then there is that statement in the Bible that says the sins of the fathers will be brought upon his children and his children's children.

<~<~<~<~SIGH~>~>~>~>

Brain overflow!!:crazy:

[Haedis]

Well even when I was Wiccan I took it as purely advice (which is what "rede" means). I think its something that each person needs to define for themselves. For me it means:

1. Treat others as I want to be treated unless they try to harm me, in which case I use my best judgement and act accordingly without going overboard. (in the case of insects i'd kill them if they bit me or bothered me too much, but usually I take them outside or leave them alone)
2. Dont abuse the power of magick (meaning i wouldnt use my own energy to harm someone but i think that reflecting their energy back to them is acceptable). Dont use magick against someone without permission unless its urgent (binding could be an example).
3. Work honestly to better myself (for example getting help if i needed it for drug abuse, working to be more honest with myself and others...ect)

I still value that advice but now I've condensed that to "use my best judgement on each situation, and conferr with my higher power if i need further guidance." I dont feel that i should have to specify to myself what morality is. It strikes me as kind of degrading to my own judgement.

[Azure]

Consistently taking things literally usually leads to a vast deviation from the original intent of the rule - whether it's the "Rede" or the Bible or whatever. And that means realistically that the situation often determines the morality of an action.

I'm not a Wiccan, but it seems to me that one of the whole points of religion (as opposed to spirituality) should be to encourage people to live the best lives they can.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm a Wiccan, and I hold the Wiccan Rede as central to my personal philosophy.

The word "rede" means "advice" - it's not really a commandment like the Christian ten commandments are supposed to be absolute.

To me, it's all about being responsible for your own actions or lack of actions. (Yes, choosing to not act is an action too!) It means that I take responsibility for what I do in my life as much as possible, and accept responsibility for the consequences of what I do.

That means that when I act, in a mundane or magickal way, I have to think about what it is I'm doing and how it affects the web of everything that is touched by my action. Everything is connected so what I do affects all sorts of things. Acting mindlessly is just irresponsible, in my opinion.

Just being alive means I'm "doing harm" to something, as others have already noted. Microbes die as I breathe, and as my white blood cells attack other microscopic life forms that are invading my body. Insects die when I walk around. Plants and animals die so I might eat. It's all about trying to be conscious of the impact I have on everything else, and making decisions about how I will live and act.

The "threefold law" (or the idea "for every action there is a reaction") is not the same thing as the Wiccan Rede, but they are closely intertwined. Because things are connected, when I do something the results will come back to me somehow. I can't do things maliciously towards others (like in cursing) and expect to not suffer some fallout myself from my actions. Some people claim that what you send out comes back to you three times or more. I'm not sure it's as quantifiable as that, but I am sure it comes back to you in some form.

The Wiccan Rede can be a quite sophisticated basis for a religious philosophy if you want it to be. But it's not a philosophy for everyone. That's one of the things I really like about the modern pagan community - there is room for lots of variety and difference!

[Ravens_Tears]

....as stated by Ben Gruagach
To me, it's all about being responsible for your own actions or lack of actions. (Yes, choosing to not act is an action too!) It means that I take responsibility for what I do in my life as much as possible, and accept responsibility for the consequences of what I do.

That means that when I act, in a mundane or magickal way, I have to think about what it is I'm doing and how it affects the web of everything that is touched by my action. Everything is connected so what I do affects all sorts of things. Acting mindlessly is just irresponsible, in my opinion.

yes yes yes!!!!

[*~*Chary*~*]

Well personally i dont follow that rule or advice AT ALL ..... if i have to hurt i will ! if i am being attacked i wouldn't just sit back ... i would do everything in my power to stop it and fight back !

[Ravens_Tears]

No on is expected to sit by and watch as someone else is victimized, or to "take it" when someone decides to make you a target.
"An' it harm no one, DO what thou will." Is about INTENTIONS. If I decide that I want to go punch you in the head because I didn't like your opinion, that would be WRONG of me. My intent would be harmful and malicious. Therefore, it would go against that tenet. And, I would fully expect that action to be returned to me as a karmic cost. Now, if I catch you attacking my child and I punch you in the head to make you stop, my intentions are purely protective and do not go against the spirit of the tenet. Just like; being a Pacifist means making a conscientious effort to not cause or contribute to disharmoney or chaos in this world. It doesn't mean being a willing victim and not defending your self when it is required.

[*~*Chary*~*]

well said

[Myst]

Unfortunately, it isn't always as cut and dry as that - sometimes one isn't totally sure of their *own* intentions or goes a little too far (ie. not being really sure inside if you want to keep an ex away because he's verbally abusive when drunk or because deep down you want to hurt him back, or wondering if you're going too far - for instance the magical equivalent of protecting yourself by stopping someone from hurting you versus then killing them)

[*~*Chary*~*]

as always Myst you bring up a good point ...

But what ravens_tears said is a good essence into that philosophy

Although when you may be under attack, how do you know how far to go, at times like that you arent thinking clearly or rationally and so may do what u say, KILL them when all you really wanted to do was STOP them. It's times like these that make that rule or piece of advice seem to make no sense at all. I think that piece of advice is a good one if we lived in a perfect world, but when it comes to reality there are so many exceptions, maybes and if's that it isn't exactly the best piece of advice ever given

Just my honest oppiunion

[Ravens_Tears]

I realize that nothing in this world is that simple. That is all part of being human. :) If we were simple creatures we would have no need of the complex social, physical, philosophical, psycological and spiritual systems we have developed to cope with existance in this reality. I realize that my style of expressing myself may come across that way, overly simplified. It is a result of the religion and philosophy courses I took in University. The most articulate way to get a point across is to break it down to it's basics, then continue the discussion into semantics. Otherwise my papers would be overly long!:blushake: In the particular situation you have described, logic alone dictates it is in your best interest to keep any one who is abusive away from you. And it is only natural for anyone who has experienced pain from the actions of another to want to return that pain. Or at least wish upon them the same. Protecting yourself is never wrong. Especially when it is from another's malicious actions. When someone intentionally brings hurt or harm into your life, the onus is upon them to make amends, the onus on you is to protect yourself from allowing that situation to re-occur. The main rule I have in my life is rather simple; at the end of the day, am I happy living in my own skin? What can I live with; what can't can't I live with and what can I do to change that? But I guess I am babbling on again.. sorry!

[*~*Chary*~*]

i don't hink your babbling i think you make a good point, and i think that breaking things down is a good way of expressing yourself as it allows the reader to get the point of what you say, however, it does leave you open to the lifes not that simple debate which is also very valid !

[Myst]

Originally posted by Ravens_Tears
The most articulate way to get a point across is to break it down to it's basics, then continue the discussion into semantics.

Yep! :)

So continuing in that vein, consider this example.

Suppose I'm walking down the street and get attacked. I am perfectly justified in protecting myself (as we were discussing) and that's natural. However, suppose after I've stopped the person I fly into a rage and slam their head off the road, killing them. From a legal standpoint, if I've successfully stopped them from hurting me, am I justified in banging their head off the road after? What if they have a gun? What if it was an accident? What if I'm sure they slipped and did it themselves? Look at that from a legal standpoint as well as spiritual - would the court believe me? How could I convince jurors it was justified or an accident? What if my fiance is with me, and he stops them and breaks some legs? What if he kills the guy? Intentionally? Accidentally? What if the guy gets away and the police are launching an investigation when I find the guy on the street and hurt him (either in the process of trying to get him to the police, or just angrily)? What if my fiance does? Spiritually, what if I do a spell to bring justice? What if I hex the guy? What if I try to kill him magically? When does protection end and vengeance step in? In each of these occurences I may not be thinking clearly or may have to act so fast that I may not have time for pondering for awhile.

This is just food for thought - definitely no easy answers which is why I think this discussion is always interesting.

[Ravens_Tears]

whoo hoo :D Excercise for my brain I :heartthro it :D!!!! :)

Quoted from Myst

Suppose I'm walking down the street and get attacked. I am perfectly justified in protecting myself (as we were discussing) and that's natural. However, suppose after I've stopped the person I fly into a rage and slam their head off the road, killing them. From a legal standpoint, if I've successfully stopped them from hurting me, am I justified in banging their head off the road after? What if they have a gun? What if it was an accident? What if I'm sure they slipped and did it themselves?....
.... What if my fiance is with me, and he stops them and breaks some legs? What if he kills the guy? Intentionally? Accidentally? What if the guy gets away and the police are launching an investigation when I find the guy on the street and hurt him (either in the process of trying to get him to the police, or just angrily)? What if my fiance does?

It is my understanding that in legalities, the first consideration is intentions or "malice a forthought" Self-defense is a valid legal defense and is not viewed as having malice in intentions or actions. Even at the point of "flying into a rage", because it is a " heat of the moment" reaction, under law it is an exscusable action. They look at what your mindset was at that time, your "belief". If you honestly in that moment believed that you or others would die if you did not carry out these actions to protect , they are considered warranted. As intention of malice is not a part of self-defense, the intention to kill someone who has given you just cause to believe that they intend to kill you is not considered a malicious act. However, in the case of a continuing police investigation into an assault upon yourself and taking it upon one's self to hurt this person when you come across them, it is considered assault and battery, which is considered to have malice ( or intent to commit) which is chargable and punishable by law. They do however consider the mitigating circumstances that compelled you to commit the assault to begin with, which would probably result in lesser or dissmissed charges. The only circumstances I am aware of where intention of malice is dissmissed as a mitigating factor when highly apparent and the act was premediated is in cases of abuse where children or spouses in a continual environment of abuse murder their abuser/s. At the moment, the proper term for that type of situation escapes me. The first person that has to be convinced of the truth of your statement of self-defense is the officer/s attending and who subsequently take your legal statement. If they believe you have been honest with them and they believe that you have actted in self-defense. There will probably be no need to ever face a jury. Charges would probably never be brought against you. An investigation would be conducted and based upon the officers conclusions the matter would be considered closed by the courts. If charges are actually brought against you and they result in court proceedings, all I can really suggest is telling the truth ( knows how funny that sounds) and hope that they really "hear" it. Within a court of law, Appeal to emotion is considered a valid logical arguement.

Spiritually, what if I do a spell to bring justice? What if I hex the guy? What if I try to kill him magically? When does protection end and vengeance step in? In each of these occurences I may not be thinking clearly or may have to act so fast that I may not have time for pondering for awhile.
If you do not have the time to ponder, you are reacting, be it physical, psychical, magical ( what have you). It is still an instinctive reaction to danger. Malice cannot really be a part of the equation. If you have time to form a malicious thought, you have time to consider it's consequences. Vengance is taking an action knowing that you will take pleasure in the others pain. Protection is action with the intentions of preserving saftey. Within my own personal beliefs, I believe that any pain I cause, warranted or otherwise, I bear responsibility for. And I am prepared to pay the cost of it. Karmically or otherwise. I cannot ask or expect that of anyone else though. How a person deals with their spiritual or moral checks and balances is as varied as there are people! Only they can determine for themselves what allows them to like the person they see every day in the mirror. But, now my brain is starting to melt so I will leave this for awhile and grab something to eat!

[Ben Gruagach]

For me the Wiccan Rede is not really about intent, but about being conscious of what we are doing (which is a different thing), and mostly about responsibility.

People with the best of intentions don't get off from being on the receiving end of consequences. If I kill another person, even if it is in self defense, then I fully expect for there to be consequences: most likely legal (even if I'm acquitted, I'd have to go through the criminal court case), emotional, social, and spiritual.

And sometimes people with bad intentions inadvertently do something which ends up having good consequences. Example: a rich person who's looking for a tax break donates money to charity, which ends up helping people who really need help.

"An it harm none" means that we must be responsible for our actions or decision to not act in a specific case, with the goal of hoping to cause as little harm overall as possible. Harm includes harm to one's self, other people, animals, plants, the ecosystem, and any entities in the spirit realm. It's all a balancing act - not acting to defend youself when attacked will definitely cause harm to you, so you must decide for yourself to fight back or allow yourself to be harmed. But the lesson for Wiccans is that we must take responsibility for our decisions and our part in what happens to us and to those around us.

Other religions have their own "core statements" of philosophy. It might be interesting to start up another thread about what the core philosophy is or might be among non-Wiccan Witches, Asatruar, and other pagan faiths. In pagan discussions we often hear about the Wiccan side of things, but not a lot about the other pagan traditions.

[Myst]

Originally posted by Ben Gruagach
For me the Wiccan Rede is not really about intent, but about being conscious of what we are doing (which is a different thing), and mostly about responsibility.

People with the best of intentions don't get off from being on the receiving end of consequences. If I kill another person, even if it is in self defense, then I fully expect for there to be consequences: most likely legal (even if I'm acquitted, I'd have to go through the criminal court case), emotional, social, and spiritual.

Thank you, this is exactly the thing I was getting at. Legally you may claim it was 'in the heat of the moment' or something, but spiritually, is that fair? My fiance for example could easily kill someone - imagine him, 260lb bodybuilder and almost a blackbelt in karate - killing a 140lb assailant. Whether the law agrees with him doing that or not (and probably not), you know people are going to say he was wrong.

As far as myself, I don't agree that I "have time to consider consequences if I have time to consider actions" - even if I have the time (not necessarily, when you're being attacked), doesn't mean I will. Personally I fly into a rage and wouldn't "think about consequences" necessarily, and if I don't, is it spiritually or legally ok for me to kill someone? Even if my intentions were just to protect myself and the anger 'in the heat of the moment'? Another example being that my fiance's ex threw hot coffee in my face last time she saw me, so if I see her again and she starts screaming, do I have the right (legally or spiritually) to protect myself by maiming or killing her? Especially considering she's half my size and physically weak/sick? I don't think so. Do I have the right to hex someone when I think they're hurting me emotionally or spiritually? I don't think so.

And I don't even follow the rede.

[Myst]

Just wanted to clarify I'm not trying to attack anyone or say anyone is wrong, I'm just getting into the discussion :D

Part of the reason I don't say I follow the Rede is that unfortunately most people either take it as the be all and end all law without thinking about it. I don't "harm none" or even necessarily harm as little as possible overall or in general. I just act as I will :)

[Ravens_Tears]

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at Myst when you used the term "legal standpoint". I didn't think you were gearing towards personal "right" and "wrong", I thought you were gearing towards the legalities and the processes and what they consider from their (legal system) standpoint. At no time do I recall saying that anyone has a right, spiritually or legally, to maim, hurt or kill others, nor would I ever say that. No one has that right. One only has the right to protect oneself or others with whatever force is warranted and necessary. The implication that I was saying that anyone has a right to cause harm offends me.

[Ben Gruagach]

The thing about "doing no harm" and taking responsibility also doesn't mean that we have to be some sort of super-people. In emergency situations, people often MUST act quickly as there is little time to think things through. But in my opinion it is the noble and wise person who willingly accepts responsibility for their actions, whether they had lots of time to think through the actions or not.

Philosophical guidelines are just that - things that help guide us. I wonder how much of the "absolute right and absolute wrong" thinking is really just a cultural effect from all these years of monotheism pushing their "One True Way." When we think more polytheistically, it becomes easier to see everything in a spectrum of possibilies, and "absolutes" of anything (including expectations of "absolute" adherence to "absolute" rules) are easier to see as artificial and imposed.

[Myst]

Originally posted by Ravens_Tears
The implication that I was saying that anyone has a right to cause harm offends me

I wasn't trying to imply you said anything. I apologize if that's how I read, but if I meant you said something I would've directed the comments at you by name :)

Also, when I said "Look at that from a legal standpoint as well as spiritual" I meant look at the questions from a legal standpoint and spiritual standpoint :) Mostly spiritual tho since this is a philosophical discussion, tho the legal system will hopefully at least attempt to follow in step.

Unfortunately Ben, I think that does tend to be the problem. Some people continue to adhere to that kind of thinking by holding blindly to the statement without thinking, whereas others try their best to rebel against it totally to rebel against "the one true way".

[Ravens_Tears]

Thankyou for that Myst, I was probably being over-sensitive because of the heat here the last week = not enough sleep! But now my oldest kitty (gizmo) is in heat and nuzzling my neck affectionatly so it is increasingly difficult to take anything seriously!!! Anyway, there are RCMP in my ancestory since they were NWMP; legalities have been bandied about at family things as far back as I can remember..... Just kind of second nature to view it in those terms :) Allot of the ideals are already in our legal system, they just don't often translate into reality. :(

It still amazes me at how much people can hang onto any number of things so feircely, and be afraid of change or opening up to new ideas or new ways of expressing old ones. Or conversly rejecting them completely and throwing out the baby with the bathwater as it were. WHen I find my self doing those things I give myself a good kick in the butt! BUt I think this will be my last serious post of the day as my intellect seems to be slipping away, so after a good nap I'll be back raring to go :D








[/COLOR]

[Cait]

Hm.

For myself, I do follow the Rede (despite not being Wiccan), because it makes a great deal of sense to me and seems like one of the simplest and most logical morality systems I've ever heard. However, as has already been mentioned, there's more than one way to interpret it...

I think that for me, the important part of the Rede is the second half, the "do as you will" part (I really don't like it when it gets cut down to "harm none"). It certainly makes more sense to me to interpret it as a positive rule ("if it doesn't harm anyone, you're definitely ok - if it does, you should probably think it over a bit first") rather than a negative one ("you can do things if and ONLY if they don't harm anyone").

It just seemed to make sense - the idea that the *only* reason to forbid something, or to avoid something, is because you might harm someone. Not "because it's just wrong" or "because God said so" but because you might cause harm to someone. It's a real, tangible reason, and as such, much more satisfying and logical - to me - than "because it's against the rules", or whatever. I've never really understood the Christian (and other religions, but it's usually Christians I've spoken to about it) prohibitions against, say, homosexuality, or sex before marriage, and I've had long, involved discussions about "but *why* is it bad, if it doesn't harm anyone?" without ever really getting an answer that made sense to me. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not Christian-bashing - if it works for them, great. It just doesn't work for me.)

Also, as Ben Gruagach pointed out, choosing not to act is also an action, and also has consequences. Therefore, if you find someone attacking your child, and choose not to do anything about it, you aren't following the Rede - you're allowing your child to be attacked, and failing to help, and thus, imo, you are harming him/her. In such a situation, you're pretty much forced to choose the lesser of two evils (bringing harm to the attacker, or (indirectly) bringing harm to your child). I'm pretty sure which one I'd choose. :)

~re-reads post~

Ugh, far too long and rambly. Did any of that actually make any sense?

[Skye]

Originally posted by TonePusher
Okay I am not questioning Pagan faith but how far do we take one of our only rules of life......*Do as you will,if it harm none*
How far can we take this and when is it possible not to apply this.



.***Blessed Be***. As someone said earlier, I think this is a Wiccan thing.

I am not Wiccan, and I also do not believe in the harm none thing. As I see it, just living enevitable harms something.

Also just my opinion, I think the saying is more of a religious quotation, some type of dogma.

[Journeyman]

The Rede seems much more of a "New Age" soundbite designed to make Wicca nice and fluffy than any cultural/religious maxim developed over generations of experience and testing.

It also seems that the rede can only be defended by writing paragraphs about what you think all the exceptions are - hardly a universal maxim, IMHO.

I don't dig on the Rede. Sometimes the best thing to do is to harm someone. Ask any parent whose child is threatened.

[Cait]

Well, I agree that "Harm None" is a pretty silly rule, and couldn't really be a universal maxim.

Thing is... the Rede isn't "Harm None". It's "If it harms none, do as you will". To me, the Rede isn't about forbidding anyone to do harm - it doesn't even deal with actions that cause harm, only with those that don't. It's not about forbidding anything - it's about what you definitely are allowed to do. A longer paraphrase might be "If it doesn't harm anyone, go right ahead. If it does harm someone, think it over and make your own decision."

This is just my interpretation of it, of course. YMMV.

[amberlaine]

Originally posted by Cait
Well, I agree that "Harm None" is a pretty silly rule, and couldn't really be a universal maxim.

Thing is... the Rede isn't "Harm None". It's "If it harms none, do as you will". To me, the Rede isn't about forbidding anyone to do harm - it doesn't even deal with actions that cause harm, only with those that don't. It's not about forbidding anything - it's about what you definitely are allowed to do. A longer paraphrase might be "If it doesn't harm anyone, go right ahead. If it does harm someone, think it over and make your own decision."

This is just my interpretation of it, of course. YMMV.

amen.

This is the same point Gus diZerega makes in his book Pagans and Christians. I ahd never considered such an argument before, but when read that, yet another light went off in my head. Like, why didn't I think of that?

[Ben Gruagach]

Originally posted by amberlaine
... when read that, yet another light went off in my head. Like, why didn't I think of that?

I hope you meant "another light went on in my head." I'd hate to think you have circuits in your head blowing because of great ideas!

<grin>