Wiccan Morality

[Gubbleknucker]

This is strikingly similar to my own morality.

The Wiccan ideal of morality is simple: do what you want, as long as you harm none. This rule contains another unwritten condition: do nothing that will harm yourself. Thus, if you was a Wicca abuse your body, deny it the necessities of life, or otherwise harm yourself, you're in violation of this principle.

This is more than survival. It also ensures that you'll be in good condition to take on the tasks of preserving and bettering our world, for concern and love for our planet play major roles in Wicca.

~Wicca, by Scott Cunningham

The "do as you want" part means that you should pursue your desires. It does not necessarily mean that you should spend time doing frivolous things that might be enjoyable in the short term, since that may get in the way of higher objectives that will make you happier in long run: your "higher purpose." It is not any more selfish than other outlooks; often human desires have a strong social element.



"Do no harm" is a little trickier:
Those who seek to do harm should be opposed, regardless of harm done to them in the process. If you choose to harm another you give up your rights as a human in society. Inaction can be equally violent as aggression.

Those who harm themselves should not be punished, as they are in much pain already and they pose little risk to society. They should be guided through their struggle in any way possible, and, in extreme cases, protected from themselves. If possible, they should be viewed as the victim and not the aggressor.

I also think that a Wicca, stripped of all faith, would still follow this principle, as it is not part of the faith-based dogma of magic, Goddess and God, living earth, spiritual energies, etc.
It is based in the human quality of empathy and the desire to live in a peaceful society.

 

[aamirsaab]

That's actually the same as Islam (and most religions!), except without praying, Allah and the 5 pillars....and any other specific details.

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

I dont mean to be rude, but whats the point of this thread :embarrass

 

[Uthman]

do what you want, as long as you harm none.

How would you define "harm" here, Gubbleknucker?

 

[glo]

That's actually the same as Islam (and most religions!), except without praying, Allah and the 5 pillars....and any other specific details.

I agree that Islam teaches to harm no others, but I don't think it teaches that it is alright to 'do what you want' - do you?

Drink, as long as you harm none?
Have sex, as long as you harm none?
Wear what you like, as long as you harm none?
Eat what you like, as long as you harm none?

None of these things would be acceptable in Islam ... unless your perception of 'harming oneself or others' is different to that of the majority of non-Muslims.

(I think that's what Uthman may be getting at with his question)

 

[Uthman]

(I think that's what Uthman may be getting at with his question)

Actually, I was just wondering whether his definition of "harm" was restricted to the physical, or whether it included the emotional as well. I was wondering whether, for example, offending another person's religious sensibilities would be included in his definition, despite the fact that this is not physical but emotional.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

That's actually the same as Islam (and most religions!), except without praying, Allah and the 5 pillars....and any other specific details.

Are we reading the same post bro? It is nothing like Islam. "Do as you want as long as you don't harm anyone" has no basis in it. Here is the verse that came to mind:

"...it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know" Quran 2: 216

 

[AntiKarateKid]

I agree that Islam teaches to harm no others, but I don't think it teaches that it is alright to 'do what you want' - do you?

Drink, as long as you harm none?
Have sex, as long as you harm none?
Wear what you like, as long as you harm none?
Eat what you like, as long as you harm none?

None of these things would be acceptable in Islam ... unless your perception of 'harming oneself or others' is different to that of the majority of non-Muslims.

(I think that's what Uthman may be getting at with his question)

I agree completely Glo.

 

[Uthman]

It would be more accurate to say that, in Islam, we can do whatever we want within the framework that the Shari'ah provides.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Actually, I was just wondering whether his definition of "harm" was restricted to the physical, or whether it included the emotional as well.

It does.

I don't consider honesty to be emotionally harmful, though, and this IS a forum on comparative religion.

Would you prefer it if I lied and told you I was Muslim?

 

[Amadeus85]

Wiccans? Neopagans? These are the bad fruits of freedom of religions. I would rather prefer that USA law was based strictly on puritanism, which would ban all such sects.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Wiccans? Neopagans? These are the bad fruits of freedom of religions. I would rather prefer that USA law was based strictly on puritanism, which would ban all such sects.

That is simply horrible.

I don't want a law passed that would ban Christianity, despite all of my problems with it.

Our government is separate from religion for good reason. Furthermore, your new law would be undesirable to nearly everyone except the puritans. In case you had forgotten, puritans are not in the majority here, and even if they were, that wouldn't make it right.


You have the word "freedom" in your signature. Do you really believe in freedom if you don't want to allow schools of thought different from your own to exist?

 

[glo]

I used to be quite into paganism myself at one point in my life.

The problem I have with the 'do what you want, as long as you harm none' is how do you know that you aren't harming anyone? :?

 

[Gubbleknucker]

You can only do your best.

If you consider the butterfly effect, basically everything you do has the potential to cause disaster, but I don't think you are responsible for distantly related events, just as the butterfly is not responsible for the hurricane.

The butterfly flapping its wings has a potential to stop the hurricane, as well. How do you know that you are not doing immeasurable good at any one time?

 

[Al-Zaara]

I have a friend who is/was Wicca, following that statement and after we discussed, we came to the conclusion it's probably (and this is how she follows it) that when no intentional harm is made, when one is aware of whom it harms, one does not do it.

 

[glo]

I am just pondering whether behaviour which we may consider 'harmless' could cause us or others harm in ways which we may not have anticipated.

For example, having a drink or two is pretty harmless, right? But what if under the influence who do something stupid you wouldn't normally do? It could easily lead to harm.

Consensual sex outside marriage is considered pretty harmless by most, right? But what if one partner gets emotionally entangled and suffers harm?

I guess many Christians and Muslims will say that the best way to keep yourself and other free from harm is to obey God's laws ... even if we don't always see or understand what his purpose behind them may be. It's question of trust that God knows what's best for us.

Does that make sense?

 

[glo]

I have a friend who is/was Wicca, following that statement and after we discussed, we came to the conclusion it's probably (and this is how she follows it) that when no intentional harm is made, when one is aware of whom it harms, one does not do it.

Good point Al-Zaara.

If I understand correctly, then Islam also teaches the importance of intention.
If somebody sins unintentionally it doesn't count as sin, is that correct?

 

[Amadeus85]

That is simply horrible.

I don't want a law passed that would ban Christianity, despite all of my problems with it

Im not a puritan, Im catholic, but I dont wish bad to USA, and turning many of Americans to paganism is a sign that this rich and powerful country (but spiritually shattered by hundreds and thousands of "churches") is going down. Just like ancient Rome in last centuries. Although that Im not great fan of protestant fundamentalism or puritanism, I know that members of these faiths built modern USA, not wiccans, jews, catholics or muslims. So a puritan based law in USA would be reasonable (it would guarantee hundreds years more of the USA existance, unlike this current, multi religious, multicultural doctrine).

Our government is separate from religion for good reason. Furthermore, your new law would be undesirable to nearly everyone except the puritans. In case you had forgotten, puritans are not in the majority here, and even if they were, that wouldn't make it right.

If majority choose something does it make it right? In the first democratical elections in our world the winner was Barabas. In last century majority of Germans voted for Adolf Hitler, now for example most of Americans think that sodomy is just another way of life. So please dont mess the truth with the opinion of majority. Although that Im far from being fan of puritanism it would bring at least some order and morality in this country.

You have the word "freedom" in your signature. Do you really believe in freedom if you don't want to allow schools of thought different from your own to exist?

There is writen - Is this in the name of the freedom, we have allowed to be destroyed.

Since the schools dont teach that 2+2 = 5, so the state shouldnt allow the propaganda of false to spread (vide - mormonism, scentologists, wiccans etc). But of course I know well that Americans already many times chose their way, their values and now, in 2009 A.D we see the results.

 

[Uthman]

It does.

Great. Would you consider the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that were published in Denmark several years ago as something immoral? Many Muslims felt very deeply offended by them. Is this emotional harm?

I don't consider honesty to be emotionally harmful, though

Okay. That's another point to consider though. Is your definiton of 'harm' dependent on whether you feel that you have harmed a person, or whether that person feels that you have harmed them?

Would you prefer it if I lied and told you I was Muslim?

I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a misunderstanding here? My questions are genuine.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Just like ancient Rome in last centuries.

The Romans viewed Christianity in much the same way as you view neopaganism, I believe.

If majority choose something does it make it right?

You actually quoted a section in which I said that it didn't.