An It Harm None

[Lithium]

[youtube]-AVduKNvhfE[/youtube]

What are your thoughts about that? Do you think it is a good way to live and is it practical nowadays?

[The Lawspeaker]

She has a point here I think. She is actually very law and order and that shows the other side of wicca (she seems to have the take on law and order that I had when I was wiccan just a bit more... forceful but she is definitely on to something. She is not one of those damned "fluffbunnies" - no gents: we are dealing with someone that has done her homework. ).

I was slightly more liberal in my ideas regarding the Wiccan Rede. Hmmm basically I interpreted (and I still do.. it still influences my basic moral structure) it like this: as long as you don't harm anyone else it's perfectly alright.
That means that you can use any kind of drugs or drink yourself in a stupor but when you get in your car you deserve more then a slap on the wrist.

In economy I'd say that I believe that there should be laws and regulations but they should be set in a contract between employers organisations and employees (Poldermodel) with the State being the watch dog and instead of standing on the side of the employers the State should always seek to secure the rights of the weakest party.

When it comes to the environment one could argue that she is definitely spot on here: if you pollute a river you endanger the lifes of anyone living downstream (think about Hungary). In that respect one can also argue against mass immigration: it harms people who are victimized as victims of crime, it discriminates against the indigenous population, it causes overpopulation so all in all you're dealing with factors that harm people: so it's a huge no no.

The same goes (in effect) for the Americanization of European societies and modern pop culture: it harms people by upsetting the traditional delicate balance and by destroying our culture.

And does it fit in modern society: definite YES. Not only could a more moderate approach work but it could also pull society back from the brink. I believed that a couple of years ago and I still believe that today.

Also when it comes to balance does she have a sound point. That's how a decent society works and ought to work but every person should just use common sense and it should not be enforced. We all have an inner voice.
In Dutch we say: "alles met "te" ervoor is verkeerd: te veel, te weinig, te arm te rijk alleen tevreden is goed" (everything with "too" is wrong: too much, too little, too poor, too rich: only content is good").

[Psychonaut]

I think it's a bad ethic for two reasons:

1. Foundational: Why are we to accept that this ethic is absolutely true? Is it purely pragmatic, as many Wiccans seem to imply? If so see point #2. If not, what kind of deontology are we dealing with? And, if it is deontological, why does this principle only apply to humans? Why not go into full blown ahiṃsā mode?
2. Practical: Harming no one is absurd. Should I not harm the madman who is trying to kill an innocent? Should I not harm the thief who tries to rob me? Should a nation not go to war with those who seek to destroy it? Ethics of non-violence also facilitate a demonization of our ancestors, who conquered other peoples and colonized their land. How would you reconcile this kind of ethic with ethnic preservationism?

[Lithium]

How would you reconcile this kind of ethic with ethnic preservationism?[/list]

This is kind of why I posted this thread... I am a racist, I hate the multicultural shits and in the same time I like wicca in it's non-multicultural way... Weird, huh? All kinds of advices for my future path will be appreciated !

[The Lawspeaker]

I think it's a bad ethic for two reasons:

1. Practical: Harming no one is absurd. Should I not harm the madman who is trying to kill an innocent? Should I not harm the thief who tries to rob me? Should a nation not go to war with those who seek to destroy it? Ethics of non-violence also facilitate a demonization of our ancestors, who conquered other peoples and colonized their land. How would you reconcile this kind of ethic with ethnic preservationism?

That's indeed the one single error: how do you deal with idiots that threaten you. Well I believed that there is nothing wrong with self-defense (if neccesary with lethal force) but there are so many interpretations to it that... err it would be difficult.

[Psychonaut]

This is kind of why I posted this thread... I am a racist, I hate the multicultural shits and in the same time I like wicca in it's non-multicultural way... Weird, huh? All kinds of advices for my future path will be appreciated !

Well, if you see a glaring problem with the ethics of it, move on. Your religious views should, in my opinion always be in a state of evolution—growing and deepening. The more you understand, the more your expressions of that understanding has to change.

That's indeed the one single error: how do you deal with idiots that threaten you. Well I believed that there is nothing wrong with self-defense (if neccesary with lethal force) but there are so many interpretations to it that... err it would be difficult.

That's a pretty gigantic error, big enough to demonstrate the need for a different ethic, since the threat of violence is an historical constant.

[Liffrea]

I’m largely not in agreement.

Balance=equilibrium=death, you need the extremes, you need the conflict. Balance is stagnation, it is counter to growth.

Don’t harm others? Depends on the context and what you mean, if you’re in a game where everyone knows the rules, business for example, you play to win, if you enter the boxing ring, you know the possible consequences. Respect for the weak and the vulnerable is noble and decent, equals and superiors, they are part of the same play.

If you don’t want to play don’t, but it is unrealistic to expect that others aren’t out for their own interests, they are, self interest is the primary motivation of all humans. Within community it’s harnessed, you are part of a social organism that operates (often against) other social organisms, harming the organism isn’t a good idea, hence communities take a dim view of murder and rape, we harness the potential of the individual to the society to create better organisms. It is foolish to expect that because you wish to have an ethic of “do to others what you want done to you” or “do know harm” that others believe the same. If you’re not prepared to defend yourself, your kin and your beliefs you simply have no business even being here in the first place.

The environment, I have a big problem with the general tree hugging attitude, humans dominate the earth, fact, if we’re smart we won’t wreck it to the point we can’t exist anymore, if we do….well I’m sure some other species will become dominant, maybe develop intelligence and start ordering the planet to their interests, that’s what life does, expands, expansion is survival, Stephen Hawking, rightly, advises mankind to, at least, colonise Mars and increase our chances of still being here a few hundred years from now. I don’t take pleasure in the demise of species but it is inevitable, humans are unique in that we actually care enough to preserve them (note no other species does, what does the eagle care for the tiger, or the monkey for the whale?). The earth has experienced constant change, today’s rainforest was yesterdays desert or ocean. That’s not to say we should aid the process, I myself have worked on many conservation projects but I’m also a realist, nothing last forever.