THE pagan ethic: "Do what thou wilt, but harm none?"

[The Laughing Man]

The Religious Tolerance website says this about the central ethic of pagans:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paga_des.htm

The Pagan Ethic: "Do what thou wilt, but harm none". This is a positive morality, not a list of thou-shalt-nots. Each individual is responsible for discovering his or her own true nature and developing it fully, in harmony with the outer world.

Is this ethic something all pagans here agree on? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[Durthorin]

The Religious Tolerance website says this about the central ethic of pagans:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paga_des.htm

The Pagan Ethic: "Do what thou wilt, but harm none". This is a positive morality, not a list of thou-shalt-nots. Each individual is responsible for discovering his or her own true nature and developing it fully, in harmony with the outer world.


Is this ethic something all pagans here agree on? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.


As a rede yes.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[tmancour]

Is this ethic something all pagans here agree on? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Sorry, I think I'm incapable of a simple yes or no.

But no, not all pagans agree on this. The vast majority, but not all.

The Rede serves as a great "rule of thumb" for most ethical situations, and it is, indeed respected by nearly all Wiccans. But the Pagan umbrella includes a lot of different philosophies, not all of whom hold the Rede as a part of their tradition. Personally, I follow the Rede, but when its scope is insufficient I use the Code of Chivalry and the Path of Wisdom to more fully inform my ethical decisions.

Arion the Blue

[The Laughing Man]

Okay, so the majority of pagans agree with the ethic.

So then how do they deal with something like voyeurism? The voyeur is doing whatever he wants and he isn't doing any harm to the people he's spying on. Obviously, voyeurism cannot be condemned under the pagan ethic.

[dizzle]

How he is not harming the peepee? Of course he is. Harm cannot be simplistically defined as bodily damage.

[Durthorin]

Okay, so the majority of pagans agree with the ethic.

So then how do they deal with something like voyeurism? The voyeur is doing whatever he wants and he isn't doing any harm to the people he's spying on. Obviously, voyeurism cannot be condemned under the pagan ethic.

Harm can be considered causing mental distress anxiety or fear.. all of the things a woman would feel if she finds a strange man looking in her window.. as a priest you might also tell the man that such behavior causes harm to himself and to his loved ones as its a rather unhealthy way to relate to women and shows some things that he needs to deal with. Any behavior that is self destructive or leads you to commit acts which are illegal causes harm to yourself on a spirtual and emotional level if not a pyhisical level.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[The Laughing Man]

Harm can be considered causing mental distress anxiety or fear.. all of the things a woman would feel if she finds a strange man looking in her window..

What if she never finds out about it? Where is the harm done to her?

as a priest you might also tell the man that such behavior causes harm to himself and to his loved ones as its a rather unhealthy way to relate to women and shows some things that he needs to deal with.

And if he believes it is not unhealthy?

Any behavior that is self destructive or leads you to commit acts which are illegal causes harm to yourself on a spirtual and emotional level if not a pyhisical level.

Ah, so the ethic is actually hangs on what the secular laws of the time say. So really, "Do what thou wilt, but harm none" is a rather poorly phrased ethic. Perhaps it should be changed to: "Do what thou wilt, but harm none and breaketh not the secular laws that thou livest under."

[Durthorin]

What if she never finds out about it? Where is the harm done to her?


Consider it this way, if your thrusting a knife at the back of a child.. your missing so what is the harm? The harm in one sense is that your choosing a risk for another human being that you don't have a right to.. thus at a minimum your choosing to place your will and desire over theirs and place them in danger for your own self-satisfaction or gratification. Hardly a healthy ethical way to interact with others.



And if he believes it is not unhealthy?


Alcoholics often don't believe they have a problem with alcohol. All you can do is point out the flaw in the logic and pray the God's help them to see the flaw in their thinking.


Ah, so the ethic is actually hangs on what the secular laws of the time say. So really, "Do what thou wilt, but harm none" is a rather poorly phrased ethic. Perhaps it should be changed to: "Do what thou wilt, but harm none and breaketh not the secular laws that thou livest under."

I personally used break the law in that sentence to point out self destructive behavior. Killing someone is illegal ie a secular law.. its also I think you would agree improper behavior under most religious ethical systems as well. The dividing line is somewhat thin. The Rede is by its nature a guideline. A call for those that follow to review their actions to insure that it causes the least amount of harm. I guess as an ex-cop I tend to think breaking the law is a self-destructive act that causes harm.

Some Wiccan's use the Harm Principle as stated by John Stuart Mills "On Liberty"


The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_%28philosophy%29), is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_individual).



Using it in reference to your peeping tom, gives you a person who'se action is by its nature a threat upon another human being.. thus harm.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[tmancour]

What if she never finds out about it? Where is the harm done to her?

And if he believes it is not unhealthy?

Ah, so the ethic is actually hangs on what the secular laws of the time say. So really, "Do what thou wilt, but harm none" is a rather poorly phrased ethic. Perhaps it should be changed to: "Do what thou wilt, but harm none and breaketh not the secular laws that thou livest under."


The Rede does not exist in a vacuum. Consider the voyeur will face substantial criminal prosecution, public ridicule, and embarassment and disgrace to his friends and family. The potential for harm to many is great. Ignoring the central violation of rights, for a moment, a Wiccan who entertained such ideas would be risking harm -- and therefore, making an unwise decision -- which would be against the spirit of the Rede.

The Rede is not Divine Law. It's an ethical guideline and an essential rule-of-thumb for navigating the complex ethical world we live in. It is not an absolute statement of ethical behavior, it is the Goddesses way of making us responsible for our own behavior.

Arion

[dizzle]

What if she never finds out about it? Where is the harm done to her?

This is not careful reasoning. A man's wife cheats on him. He never finds out. What's the harm? Surely you can see the hole in that logic, the same applies here in principle.

[Durthorin]

This is not careful reasoning. A man's wife cheats on him. He never finds out. What's the harm? Surely you can see the hole in that logic, the same applies here in principle.

What I was going to point out to Laughing Man is that by his logic if I walk around behind him with a gun aimed at the back of his head, the hammer back and the only thing between him and death a half pound pull on the trigger.. by his view.. as long as he doesn't see me its OK.

[Lady Macbeth]

I can't agree fully with the Rede as outlined "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt" because of two reasons:

1) I'm a bad, bad Pagan who had the unfortunate early start in the works of Aleister Crowley. There were no teachers in my area when I first started down a magical path, and books on the subject were few and far between - many of mine came from UW-Madison or papers pulled from Madison's rare books archive. I was well versed in Crowley before I had ever even heard of "Wicca". "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." became ingrained in my head to the point that it still echoes today, and I have a hard time saying the Rede "properly" in the Wicca 101 class I'm taking.

2) One of the sticky points with the Rede is in situations such as the voyeur, or in even more dangerous situations. One that's come up at least twice with Wiccans and Pagans in my area is preventing a stalker or abusive ex from approaching you. A binding spell to reinforce the restraining order, right? Ah, but "harm none" - you're prohibited from infringing on the freak's free will, the very same free will that allows them to stalk you and threaten you with physical harm. In our community, most of the members have agreed that it's ok to bend their will if it is self-defense. It's one of those "exceptions" to the rule.

I personally believe that if a rule needs exceptions, it needs to be revised. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" works a tad better - yes, it means that the stalker or ex are free to continue on with their obsessive, aggressive behavior - but it also means that you are free to kick them in their flippin head if they violate the restraining order. :teeth: Or, if you're not the physical type, then to use the binding spell to reinforce the order and not have to do the "guilty conscience" thing until you convince yourself that it was an "okay" reason to violate the Rede.

[Jillyn'Toast]

Hm... I didn't know that was the "pagan ethic". I have a friend who tells me that when I find out he's been cutting himself or doing other self damaging things. He claims he isn't hurting anyone else, and so it's alright. He doesn't necessarily claim any religion as his own, he sort of is dangerously ecclectic. But, I was wondering what you thought about this and self harm?

[Lady Macbeth]

"Harm none" means harm none - including the self. Self-harm of any sort (cutting, smoking, alcoholism, etc) are not allowed under the Rede.

EDIT: I should clarify this to state that the above applies to those who follow the Rede. As I do not, it's a '**** if I care' situation. I do not personally believe in harming oneself, but I'm not going to stop anyone else from doing it if they're only involving themselves.

The sticky part of that situation is that things like cutting, while seemingly only hurting "yourself", emotionally hurt those around you. No, you're not cutting their skin - instead, you're inflicting emotional wounds on them every time they have to look at your scars.

"Don't involve other people in your bullshit" has been my motto and I stick by it.