"As it harm none, do what you will"

CFLarsen

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
42,371
The Wiccan credo.

How is it possible to live by that? You can't walk anywhere, because you are bound to step on bugs. Each time you breathe, you destroy bacteria in the air (good for you, not good for the bacteria). You can't cook anything, because you will kill living creatures by doing so. You can't eat anything at all, for the same reason. You can't have sex, because if you ejaculate, you kill sperm.

Yet, I don't see Wiccans stop walking about, breathing, cooking, eating, or having sex. So, when is something harmful, and when is it not? Where is the line drawn?

I'm puzzled.
 
CFLarsen said:
The Wiccan credo.

How is it possible to live by that?


The Wiccans have the exact same problem libertarians do. Libertarians also have an anti harm principle that is just as central and just as ill defined in their philosophy.

What is harm? Who gets to define what harm is?

When philosophies can be defined with platitudes they all sound good.

It is when the real world has to be taken into account that philosophies based upon simplistic platitudes are found wanting.
 
clarsct said:
You're in luck!
I just met someone who is Wiccan. You'll see a thread about her in the Million Dollar Challenge section.
Here:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=57274

I'll ask next I see her. (About Tues. or so.)

Hell, I might even get her to post here! Then she can answer on a one-to-one basis. I'll keep you informed.

(She claims to be a 'priestess' I believe. I'll check.)

Excellent! Have her come here and explain.
 
Re: Re: "As it harm none, do what you will"

username said:
The Wiccans have the exact same problem libertarians do. Libertarians also have an anti harm principle that is just as central and just as ill defined in their philosophy.

What is harm? Who gets to define what harm is?

When philosophies can be defined with platitudes they all sound good.

It is when the real world has to be taken into account that philosophies based upon simplistic platitudes are found wanting.

Well, this is the real world, so let's hear the Wiccan arguments.
 
A strict intepretation of the sentence would seem to be "If it doesn't harm anyone, do what you want." Which is technichally quite doable, because it doesn't explictly say what to do if it does harm people.

Doing some quick googling, it does appear that many including actual Wiccans do interpret the phrase to also mean "And if does harm people, don't do it." And yeah, that is obviously a bit trickier.

It's probably worth noting that most wiccans also believe in karma, which is probably pretty useful to understanding the Wiccan Rede. So they'd say something like "well yeah, I guess I harm people from time to time, but I try not to, because it'll just come back to haunt me."

Depends on the Wiccan though, and of course this thread will be much more substantial if some wiccan actually comes down and posts in the thread.
 
"An it harm none" also includes yourself, your family, etc.

How this line is interpreted is purely up to the individual Wiccan.

In my own case, I choose to interpret it to mean, "So long as no humans are deliberately harmed, do as you please." By harm, I refer to physical, mental, and economic harm; I am uninterested in emotional harm or other, less-defined forms of 'harm'. I also choose to interpret this as not causing needless harm to other living things, meaning no sport-hunting, casual abortions, child abuse, etc. No chopping forests down just to get a better view. No smoking around other people.

There really is no single, hard, fast answer to the question, Larsen.

Death is merely part of the cycle of life. Things must die so other things can live. Things die casually all the time in nature. Some harm always happens, but between humans, this need not be so.

In the broadest sense, the Rede is simply a suggestion or guideline for how to behave: when faced with a choice, determine whether any of your options will cause needless harm, and proceed from there. But it is not a Law, and many Pagans don't follow it at all.

There is also, for some Wiccans, a longer form of the Rede (Doreen Valiente's comes to mind, which is a lengthy poem full of odd concepts) that includes something along the lines of 'except in self defense, an it harm none, do what thou wilt'. Other Wiccan traditions have their own moral guidelines built roughly on this idea, or on other similar ideas.

So, do you have the same problem with, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you?" Really, most religions have some form of the Golden Rule/Wiccan Rede in them. The idea isn't to cause no harm at all to anything - that is an abomination to nature. The idea is to not cause needless harm - but to recognize that many things don't harm people at all, so why worry about them? Why shouldn't two same-sex lovers do what they want, as long as they aren't hurting other people? Why shouldn't you be allowed (if it is your wont to do so) to walk around stark naked as long as you aren't going to freeze to death or burn up?

I'll try to give more clear answers later.
 
zaayrdragon said:
In the broadest sense, the Rede is simply a suggestion or guideline for how to behave: when faced with a choice, determine whether any of your options will cause needless harm, and proceed from there. But it is not a Law, and many Pagans don't follow it at all.

Bull. It is the only Law there is.

But when called to apply it in real life, you blink.
 
zaayrdragon said:
There really is no single, hard, fast answer to the question, Larsen.

username said:
When philosophies can be defined with platitudes they all sound good.

It is when the real world has to be taken into account that philosophies based upon simplistic platitudes are found wanting.

You got that right.
 
Claus, could you not see it as an ideal to strive for, knowing that it will never be reached? Certainly, as you describe, we can never harm "none", but should that stop us from trying our best to harm as few as possible? This is not an all-or-nothing thing; the credo does not say "as it harm none, do what you will, but if you can't manage that, kill yourself." That sort of all-or-none thinking is a great way to paralyze yourself (metaphorically speaking)--if I can't make the world perfect, why bother trying to make it merely better? We live in a real world, not some platonic ideal world, and "better", rather than "perfect", is the best we can get.
 
Mercutio said:
Claus, could you not see it as an ideal to strive for, knowing that it will never be reached? Certainly, as you describe, we can never harm "none", but should that stop us from trying our best to harm as few as possible? This is not an all-or-nothing thing; the credo does not say "as it harm none, do what you will, but if you can't manage that, kill yourself." That sort of all-or-none thinking is a great way to paralyze yourself (metaphorically speaking)--if I can't make the world perfect, why bother trying to make it merely better? We live in a real world, not some platonic ideal world, and "better", rather than "perfect", is the best we can get.

But we don't hear that from Wiccans - until challenged.

The problem is, it doesn't say "As it harm as little as possible, do what you will". It says specifically "none". So, if Wiccans are to live up to that, they can't exist at all. It is presented as an all-or-nothing credo, but when faced with reality, it becomes inundated with conditions, depending on what situation the Wiccan is in.

It's an ad-hoc philosophy, not just imperfect (like all philosophies) but half-baked. When reality comes a'knockin', the frantic explanations increase in number.

Exactly what we see with other superstitious beliefs.
 
Claus, i'm probably a bigger atheist than you are, being that i'm a robot and uninterested in the beliefs of you mere fleshbags, but even i think you're being a bit pendantic.
 
CFLarsen said:
But we don't hear that from Wiccans - until challenged.

The problem is, it doesn't say "As it harm as little as possible, do what you will". It says specifically "none". So, if Wiccans are to live up to that, they can't exist at all. It is presented as an all-or-nothing credo, but when faced with reality, it becomes inundated with conditions, depending on what situation the Wiccan is in.

It is no more and no less silly than any other comparably pithy moral principle.

It's an ad-hoc philosophy, not just imperfect (like all philosophies) but half-baked. When reality comes a'knockin', the frantic explanations increase in number.

You can play the same game with the Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, Bill S. Preston's commandment ("be excellent to each other") and any other generic moral rule I can think of. If you want them to cover tricky situations you need to patch them as you go.

Exactly what we see with other superstitious beliefs.

I do not see why you have it in for this attempt at a moral rule. It is no worse than any other for vagueness and incoherence under scrutiny.

Are you absolutely sure you do not just have it in for the Rede because it is associated with woowoos?
 
"You can play the same game with the Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, Bill S. Preston's commandment ("be excellent to each other") and any other generic moral rule I can think of. If you want them to cover tricky situations you need to patch them as you go"

Which is why the only church that skeptics should follow, is the Church of American Secular Humanism, founded by the sainted Francis Vincent.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Are you absolutely sure you do not just have it in for the Rede because it is associated with woowoos?

Should it prevent me from questioning it, because it is associated with woowoos?
 
CFLarsen said:
But we don't hear that from Wiccans - until challenged.

The problem is, it doesn't say "As it harm as little as possible, do what you will". It says specifically "none". So, if Wiccans are to live up to that, they can't exist at all. It is presented as an all-or-nothing credo, but when faced with reality, it becomes inundated with conditions, depending on what situation the Wiccan is in.

It's an ad-hoc philosophy, not just imperfect (like all philosophies) but half-baked. When reality comes a'knockin', the frantic explanations increase in number.

Exactly what we see with other superstitious beliefs.
I'd argue that it serves its function better when stated as an ideal, rather than as you rephrased it here. There is a difference between "do your absolute best" and "hey, just try real hard." If you are going to try to govern people (in the broad sense of the word), simpler rules are easier to understand. Of course they are oversimplified--they are the original "sound bites."
 
Mercutio said:
I'd argue that it serves its function better when stated as an ideal, rather than as you rephrased it here. There is a difference between "do your absolute best" and "hey, just try real hard." If you are going to try to govern people (in the broad sense of the word), simpler rules are easier to understand. Of course they are oversimplified--they are the original "sound bites."

I disagree. If you want to call rules of a superstitious faith "sound bites", then what about perhaps the best known "sound bites", namely the 10 commandments? "Thou shall not kill" is not exactly oversimplified - it is meant to be taken literally.

It would be a whole different religion, if it said "Do your absolute best not killing anyone".

Credos (why isn't that "credi"?) are not meant to be interpreted, precisely because they are ideals.
 
To the bit about handcuffing children... I have no idea what that refers to. Personally, handcuffs are an offensive idea. But there is no 'Wiccan policy' on anything at all.

As for Larsen, the fact is, he is overly pedantic in many respects. That is certainly his right. I wonder, though, if he gets so vigilant and focused looking at secular laws, philosophical concepts, etc.

The Rede is NOT a law, Claus. Very specifically, the Rede is listed in many books on the subjects as something not quite a law, stronger than a suggestion; an ideal, a goal, perhaps, but not a law. There's no Wiccan Gestapo out there arresting Wiccans for stepping on bugs or eating deer. It is very much in the same class as every other moral code and ideal available to mankind through religion and/or philosophy - strive to fit it as best you can, but don't beat yourself up over it.

That being said, it is also rarely honestly followed, even in the loosest sense, by many Wiccans. They spout off the Rede like it's a golden shield, but then cast dark spells at each other, make disparaging comments behind each other's backs, beat their kids, kick their dogs, etc. Why? Because Wiccans are human, too.

This doesn't mean ALL Wiccans act this way, or even that most do, or even that it's common. It just means that this is the way people tend to be. The most devout Christians still violate the Golden Rule when it suits them. The most devoted Buddhists still fail to live up to their own moral codes sometimes. And no moral code is ever complete; exceptions and conditions apply anytime, anywhere, to any code of conduct.

It's like being in a large corporation, and having a big poster on the wall that says something like, "Low cost, high quality." Obviously, these two things contradict each other on a regular basis; the individual worker or boss has to make the decisions about whether to spend more buying quality parts, or keep costs low somehow. The ideal is to reach an overall state of lower cost and higher quality, but is often difficult or impossible to achieve. And, at times, you have to draw lines even within such a code.

As I said before, many Wiccans interpret 'None' to mean 'No Human'; many others will define broad interpretations that include humans, mammals, fish, etc. but exclude harmful insects, microscopic life, and so forth.

One thing to remember is that there is no 'Wiccan Church' that is inclusively in charge of all Wiccans. Unlike most other religions, Wicca is a disorganized religion. It is a mish-mash of many ideas from many sources, most notably from the Ceremonial Magician concepts of Alistair Crowley, blended heavily with bits and pieces of pantheistic culturalism, environmentalism, fantasy, and feminism. No two Wiccans ever seem to be much alike. And no governing body exists to tell them all what to do.

There are even some Wiccan groups who have rejected the classic Rede and created their own guidelines for good behavior; these are probably much more palatable to your way of thinking, since they are more specific about when harm is necessary and when it is to be avoided. Overall, it could be generalized still as "Do what you like, but don't hurt yourself or others more than necessary."

Consider the Golden Rule, for a moment. There are some freaky folks out there who like pain, who enjoy domination, who like suffering. The Golden Rule suggests, if taken literally, that they should be out there inflicting pain, dominating others, and causing suffering, yes? But even these strange people can recognize something that you are choosing not to: that there is an intent behind these moral codes to be strived for, which is not necessarily contained within the letter of the code.

No, it's not perfect. It's not precise. It's not all-encompassing. Folks violate the letter of it all the time - even very good folks. How is that different from any law, rule, guideline, code, etc. anywhere in the world?

... Odd thought - I just pictured Larsen in my mind driving his auto precisely at the speed limit, never attempting to beat the red, always signalling; always heating his food precisely by the instructions; and mailing checks to artists every time he hums a popular tune in the presence of others. Made me giggle - sorry. :D
 

Back
Top Bottom