Is one worse than the other?

[Hærfest Leah]

In your opinion do you think harming another is worse than interfereing with their free will?

Edited to make the title more specific.

[cheddarsox]

because the effects of anything we do or do not do are so far reaching, I think that ultimately we can never really know the full results of our actions. We may 'harm' someone, and feel guilty for years and then run into them and find out what we did actually changed their lives forever...for the better. Or we can kill and maim with kindness. It is all so complex.

We need to remember that our personal magic is not the only magic involved. Our intention is not the only intention at work. We can't take all the credit or blame for anything that happens.

We do need to evaluate situations and act, no getting around that, but the ultimate judgement of our actions (in the big picture) is not our to make. However, I think we certainly should have rules of thumb for making our own personal decisions...and I think that the type of harm or free will interference would have to be looked at. A big harm might be worse than a small interference, a small harm might be better than a big interference.

cheddar

[Semele]

Do you mean to compare harming another vs interfering with our own free will? Because if you just meant interferring with anothers free will...I equate that to harming them, should you be able to pull this off.

It is an interesting question and one that seems oddly meant for me. I know we have to be doing our TRUE will to be happy and it is just easier to use free will to accomplish that task. It is so nice when it all meshes like that and sometimes we forget how rare. Even when we mesh ourselves, we can get unhinged by looking at others who struggle to mesh.

To the original question, I would rarely ever want to harm another. I tend to go to the extreme opposite and want to heal all I meet. Sometimes, apparently, to the point of losing my free will in the process.

Sorry, that may or may not make sense to anyone but me. Thanks though.

[Temptation]

I don't follow these rules. I do believe that the harm we intentionally cause others eventually finds its way back to us, but that has never stopped me from casting spells I should know better not to cast. If I'm willing to interfere with someone's free will or to harm another through magic, I'm also willing to face the possible future karmic consequences.

Experience has taught me to be a lot more careful and to not use magic against others anymore. It's a lot easier and a lot less painful for me to use magic on myself to increase the odds in my favor. It takes longer this way, but I eventually get what I was after anyway.

[Viseux]

I personally believe that to intentionally do either one is generally wrong.

However, I will harm another if I must do so to protect myself, my family, or my friends.
If I do that, They may not... "get over it."

If I interfere with their free will, the chances are very good that there will be no permanent harm done.

Blessings,
Viseux

[Darakash]

First, just let me say, Temptation: DITTO, that could literally have been written by me!

Second:




If I interfere with their free will, the chances are very good that there will be no permanent harm done.


I strongly disagree with this statement. I personally feel that to interfere with free will IS harm, and can lead to even greater unforseen circumstances than let us say "directly" (for lack of a better word) harming someone. If you for instance, do some kind of "love spell" on someone, and thereby interfere with their free will, you may be actually causing them to change the course of some other choice that would have led to a totally different path or course in their life...in the most extreme, what if they were so focused on "loving" whomever you directed them to, that they missed(as in didn't meet or only met casually) a person that could have become their life mate or something of that magnitude? I see it as the Chaos theory in an interpersonal situation: SMALL CHANGES CAN SOMETIMES HAVE HUGE EFFECTS!

Just my opinion of course!
dk

[Viseux]

I strongly disagree with this statement. I personally feel that to interfere with free will IS harm, and can lead to even greater unforseen circumstances than let us say "directly" (for lack of a better word) harming someone. SMALL CHANGES CAN SOMETIMES HAVE HUGE EFFECTS!
Just my opinion of course!
dk

I'm really not in disagreement with you on this.
As I said before, I really believe both to be very harmful.
What I was trying to explain (poorly) was that if *I* did directly harm someone (especially physically) they might not survive the encounter.
If I in some way interfere with their free will, we both (they & I) are still here (on this physical plain) to try and correct it.

Now I've made myself sound like some Bad Ass.

~Sighs~

I really hope that I never have to deal with either situation.

Blessings,
Viseux

[Darakash]

I'm really not in disagreement with you on this.
As I said before, I really believe both to be very harmful.
What I was trying to explain (poorly) was that if *I* did directly harm someone (especially physically) they might not survive the encounter.
If I in some way interfere with their free will, we both (they & I) are still here (on this physical plain) to try and correct it.

Now I've made myself sound like some Bad Ass.

~Sighs~

I really hope that I never have to deal with either situation.

Blessings,
Viseux

Oh, nah, I just misunderstood what you meant! Now I understand! Thanks! and, I don't think sounding like a Bad Ass is a bad thing! And I am with you....I don't want to have to deal with either, either.....
DK

[Xentor]

doing harm, going against free will...

In my views, we are all influencing each other to a lesser or greater extent. Me writing this is influencing you, because I expect you to read it, think about it, and perhaps even reply to it. You creating the thread are influencing us, not specifically me, because you expect us to read it, think about it, and reply.

Influence is part of our daily lives. At times it is quite harmless, like posting on this board mostly. Some posts are regarded as offensive, so they influence more strongly. Some posts will get people banned, so they require immediate action from an admin, who might or might not loose their job because of taking that action instead of working for their employer. Influence can go a long way, unforeseen at times.

But there's also the harmful intent. Should I torture a terrorist, when they refuse to name their superiors, hideouts, or next targets? Harmful intent in both parties, hindering of free will in both parties. For some people it seems that torture is the only way. For others, that road is despickable.

Where do I stand?

I like to be happy. In order to do that, I will try to make some people around me happy. I can't always do that. Sometimes I must force people to do things they don't like. Sometimes I do it because they refuse and I must punish them. My admin actions here on the board are a good example, but it is equally possible to see this in raising children.

Anyway, I like to be happy. That means I must influence the people around me to support my happiness. At times, it takes hurting someone. And once or twice, someone will threaten my family and I will eradicate the threat with extreme force. I might end up in jail because of that, but my family should be safe for a while.

On another note, my beliefs tell me that everyone is capable of aiding me in fulfilling part of my task in this lifetime. That means, that randomly killing people could mean, that I can't fulfill my task. Bad for me. Thus randomly hurting people should be prevented as much as possible.

And there's this whole "revenge" thing. If I hurt someone badly enough, they will seek me out as well, to give me what I deserve. So to stay happy myself, I can't go around slapping people.

In three words:

it's complex.

[Semele]

Thus randomly hurting people should be prevented as much as possible.
You have rationalised that down to the bottom line my friend. No matter if it is logic or emotion that leads us here...we are here.




In three words:

it's complex.
The golden rule

[Hærfest Leah]

ok I have something personal in mind as an example...... There is someone we want to keep out of our lives forever because when they contact us/interfere it only causes trouble, negative effects and harms our relationship. Now, if I put a spell on this persons free will (but not to harm them) to forget about us, never contact us again & just go about their life to be a better person is this a bad spell?

Or is it harmless enough I should do it for us. This person obviously cannot see what their doing to us everytime they pop up unwelcomed and just doesn't get the hint to stay away. I see it as protecting us and our relationship, there is definitely good intent here.

[1111]

Someone told me once that a spell won't work if it goes against a person's free will. Does anyone want to comment on that?

True or not ture.

[Temptation]

Someone told me once that a spell won't work if it goes against a person's free will. Does anyone want to comment on that?

True or not ture.

Was that about a love spell? If it was, then I agree. You just can't make someone love you, it doesn't work. What you'll get is lust bordering on sexual obsession, which is about the only thing a love spell directed at a specific person will accomplish. Never a good idea.

I think that going against someone's free will using magic does work, but never in the way the caster originally intended. The energy sent out in this manner collides with the other person's energy and gets twisted or loses a lot of its strength in the process.

[1111]

Was that about a love spell? If it was, then I agree. You just can't make someone love you, it doesn't work. What you'll get is lust bordering on sexual obsession, which is about the only thing a love spell directed at a specific person will accomplish. Never a good idea.

I think that going against someone's free will using magic does work, but never in the way the caster originally intended. The energy sent out in this manner collides with the other person's energy and gets twisted or loses a lot of its strength in the process.

No not a love spell, he just explained that any time you do any spell that is against anothers free will it won't work. Just wondered what others thought about that.

[mol]

Do what thou Wilt shall be the Whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love Under Will.

I adhere to this rule. So, imo, interfering with anothers Will would be worse.

[dr_zeus440]

You have rationalised that down to the bottom line my friend. No matter if it is logic or emotion that leads us here...we are here.

i disagree. logic cannot lead to this conclusion, atleast not in the above circumstance, because the premises given by Xentor are unproveable. you cannot base an argument of logic on your own beliefs, because those beliefs, while they may be true to you, are of, at best, debatable verity in almost any wider paradigm. this is not to say that the conclusion is therefore necessarily "wrong", but i would definitely like to point out that suggesting that it is some kind of indissoluble truth is dangerously fanciful.


Someone told me once that a spell won't work if it goes against a person's free will. Does anyone want to comment on that?

True or not true?

short answer: not true.
the long answer depends on whether you think truth needs to be trans-paradigmatic, or if you accept that anything that is true to you is true only within your perceptions. if you believe truth is an absolute and therefore is trans-paradigmatic, then a spell can work regardless of it's interference in the targets free will, while at the same time it cannot. so, speaking logically, trans-paradigmatic truth does not exist (but thats not to say that it does exist speaking illogically :)). in the second scenario (i.e. truth being singular to the perceptions of the perceiver), well, you are, somewhat predictably, on your own. basically, the long answer requires a true definition of truth, which, being somewhat cyclical, will, logically, never exist. even more basically, the best meaning of life you're ever going to get is to function to the achievement of your values within your situation.


Was that about a love spell? If it was, then I agree. You just can't make someone love you, it doesn't work. What you'll get is lust bordering on sexual obsession, which is about the only thing a love spell directed at a specific person will accomplish. Never a good idea.

pray tell, what is love? is love a constant emotion engendered within an other? because if it is, it is unmeasurable to the self and therefore is as good as nonexistent. id argue that love is the actions derived from the supposed existence of the aforementioned emotion, i.e. love is a constant emotional response or action. in which case, love most certainly can be bottled. speaking from my own perception, one can use magic to manipulate. one can use magic to manipulate others. one can use magic to manipulate other's actions. one can use magic to constantly (and, possibly, continually) manipulate other's actions to replicate the actions of an other who "loves" oneself. and therefore, you most certainly can make someone love you. you can also make someone lust after you with passion bordering on sexual obsession, as probably is most often the case (i imagine that it is far easier for a simple spell to cause this effect than to effect the number of probability chains required to cause continual or even constant actions replicating love) with your run of the mill "love" spells. but, this is probably due more to te lack of planning, understanding and applied intellect of the caster than due the impossibility of replicating love magically.

as for the original question, i am wont to say that both harming others and interfering with the free will of another are equal in that they are both equally hypothetically inconsequential to me. i mean, even on the most basic level, what is harm, and what is free will?

[Temptation]

i
pray tell, what is love? is love a constant emotion engendered within an other? because if it is, it is unmeasurable to the self and therefore is as good as nonexistent. id argue that love is the actions derived from the supposed existence of the aforementioned emotion, i.e. love is a constant emotional response or action. in which case, love most certainly can be bottled. speaking from my own perception, one can use magic to manipulate. one can use magic to manipulate others. one can use magic to manipulate other's actions. one can use magic to constantly (and, possibly, continually) manipulate other's actions to replicate the actions of an other who "loves" oneself. and therefore, you most certainly can make someone love you. you can also make someone lust after you with passion bordering on sexual obsession, as probably is most often the case (i imagine that it is far easier for a simple spell to cause this effect than to effect the number of probability chains required to cause continual or even constant actions replicating love) with your run of the mill "love" spells. but, this is probably due more to te lack of planning, understanding and applied intellect of the caster than due the impossibility of replicating love magically.


What is love? I have asked myself this question more often than I can say and have reached a completely different conclusion each and every time. It's enough to make your head spin. How do we define something so utterly simple and complicated at the same time? How do we put a precise label on an emotion triggered by a gazillion different factors?
Romantic love is so very much linked with sexual attraction, how do we make the distinction? Is love ever pure and devoid of selfish needs and wants?
I thought that the only pure, unselfish love was the love a mother feels for her child, until I had a child myself and discovered that even this most binding of loves has dark, hidden and less than perfect sides to it.

So love being this mind-boggling, twisted, unbelievably complex combination of physical, emotional and spiritual reactions, how can we possibly replicate it through magic? How do we conjure something we don't even begin to understand? We can replicate parts of it, the ones we feel we have a grasp on, but we can never really replicate the amazing chain reaction that occurs in someone else's mind, body and soul when they fall desperately in love.
At least, I've never met anyone powerful enough to do it. If such a powerful, gifted person does exist, I'd like to think their power would give them the wisdom to leave well enough alone.

Now look what you've gone and done. You made me think. On a Sunday!! I make it a point not to think on a Sunday. My brain needs a rest at least once a week. ;)

[Xentor]

i disagree. logic cannot lead to this conclusion, atleast not in the above circumstance, because the premises given by Xentor are unproveable. you cannot base an argument of logic on your own beliefs, because those beliefs, while they may be true to you, are of, at best, debatable verity in almost any wider paradigm. this is not to say that the conclusion is therefore necessarily "wrong", but i would definitely like to point out that suggesting that it is some kind of indissoluble truth is dangerously fanciful.

Hm. Going a bit off topic into logic theory here: when some things are given (like religious dogma), one can draw logical conclusions based on them, even when the given things cannot be proven. Of course, the whole thought and the conclusions loose all validity when the dogmas are proven wrong. The validity of the dogma doesn't say anything about the logic of the thought process based upon them. Likewise, the logic of the thought process doesn't validate nor invalidate the dogma upon which it is based.

Then again, yes, I agree that suggesting my beliefs lead to an indissoluble truth can be dangerous. Thus to myself I explained Semele's comment as stating that her beliefs match mine, on this point. Far less general, far more personal.

[Pandoras]

ok I have something personal in mind as an example...... There is someone we want to keep out of our lives forever because when they contact us/interfere it only causes trouble, negative effects and harms our relationship. Now, if I put a spell on this persons free will (but not to harm them) to forget about us, never contact us again & just go about their life to be a better person is this a bad spell?

Or is it harmless enough I should do it for us. This person obviously cannot see what their doing to us everytime they pop up unwelcomed and just doesn't get the hint to stay away. I see it as protecting us and our relationship, there is definitely good intent here.

When situations like this arise, magick is the last thing on my mind. I find that I can take care of most problems mundanely. If there is a person I want out of my life, I break off the relationship cleanly and clearly. I don't accept phone calls, emails, visits, etc. I stand firm. That's it. And so far, it has worked every time.

As far as the question about what is worse, interfering with free will or causing harm...I generally agree with Xentor. We influence people's free will all the time in small ways that may go unnoticed. That doesn't mean I would cast a spell that would attempt to change a person so dramatically (nor do I think it would work anyway). I think deliberately causing harm is far worse.

[DixieWitch]

I personally believe that to intentionally do either one is generally wrong.

However, I will harm another if I must do so to protect myself, my family, or my friends.
If I do that, They may not... "get over it."

If I interfere with their free will, the chances are very good that there will be no permanent harm done.

Blessings,
Viseux
I feel the same. Maybe some have read my thread in JT about my sister. Yes she is my sister. But I feel more compelled to protect my friend from my sister. And if this goes against either's free will, than so be it. I want to protect my friend from my sister but I also want to protect my sister from doing anything that could harm her or others.

[Dawa Lhamo]

Do what thou Wilt shall be the Whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love Under Will.

I adhere to this rule. So, imo, interfering with anothers Will would be worse.Right, but their free will is not necessarily their True Will. As much as I might be able to influence or work against their will, I don't think I have the strength or influence to interfere with their Will. If I have a suicidal friend (well, I'd be taking a lot of mundane action, too) it would be interfering with free will to stop her, but would she really be Willing to kill herself?

I tend to be diplomatic anyway, and instead of trying to solve the problem directly, I do magic to bring clarity or stability or whatever, so they can fix the problem themselves. Others might say this is still ethically wrong if I don't have their permission, but I'm the kind of person that *can't* sit by while friends harm themselves or others.

So, I consider harming another person to be a graver matter. Unless the person is deluded or into self-harm, then it's going against their free will anyway, *and* it's harming them. Granted, sometimes a small harm to prevent a larger harm is good (such as tough love), but flippantly harming someone, I think, is worse.

And no matter what, I think there are consequences for every bit of magic we do. Interfering with free will *and* harming someone do have negative consequences, but if the situation warrants, I would be willing to suffer them. (And have been.)

And I've never understood the idea that magic wouldn't work if someone were unaware of it (placebo effect?) or if it were against their free will. I've done magic that's worked when the "targets" were unaware of it. I don't know...

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Rev R]

are these types of spells actually interfering with someone's free will or just simply stacking the odds in favor of a particular outcome?