|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:32 pm
(( I originally posted this in Loona's Official Witchcraft Thread in the Supernatural Forum. But I thought it might spark some interesting conversation here too. ))
On the subject of "Do no harm"... I have a RANT! (What a surprise. stare )
Okay, so there are two basic quotes that appear to be the most commons forms of the "harm none" rule. One is the Rede which is "And if it harm none, do what ye will" and the other has no fancy or mystical sounding title and is simply "Do no harm". My problem with them (besides all the other obvious crap that we've already discussed to death) is that they both either ridiculously impossible to hold to OR they're obnoxiously vague and sketchy.
First of all, neither of these sayings specify that it is magic or witchcraft (or whatever you choose to call it) that we're not supposed to be harming things with. They just say if you're not hurting anything, do what you want. There is no mention of "if you're not hurting things with your magic, do as you please", no, its just if you're not hurting things.
"But, Renkon," I hear you say, "how can that be a bad thing? Its encouraging responsibility and countability for their actions in all aspect of life, not just witchcraft."
Sure. But look closer: The sayings are telling people not to harm anything... not to harm anything... anything... anything... ANYTHING!
That sounds like a pretty impossible goal if you ask me.
When was the last time you smacked a mosquito for biting you? How often do you weed your garden and leave the weeds out in the sun to die before throwing them in your mulch pile? Have you ever fumigated your home? Do you drive a car? Do you eat meat? Do you eat vegetables? Do you eat? etc. It is impossible to live without harming other things. The Rede and "Do no harm" laws are either setting an impossible standard for people to follow or else those who coined theme never bothered to think beyond themselves and see that they left their sayings so open to interpretation as to render them meaningless.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:00 pm
I don't adhere to the rede at all personally as I don't consider myself a witch nor a wiccan.
I'm of the opinion if you cannot harm, you cannot heal and thus if you cannot heal you cannot harm. For example I am quite prepared to work a 'curse' for want of a better term if it's going to take a dangerous individual off the street making the area safer for it's inhabitants though I know that I will face repercussions of some description further down the line and if it's going to keep people safer I will face those repercussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:19 pm
I think part of the problem is the use of an incredibly simplified version of morality as a personal morality by following the Rede. As I learned in Ethics in college, there is no perfect ethical theory. There isn't a set of rules that, by following, allows perfect freedom and perfect morality. At some point, it is right and necessary to impede on someone else's freedom of choice.
This is why I much prefer "Do as you wilt shall be the whole of the law", because it puts the moral and ethical burden on the person and makes the person decide whether their actions are right or necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:21 pm
I'm with AniMajor on this one.
I think that striving to harm none is a worthy goal but it's an ideal and not something that can actually be achieved. I think it would be morally deplorable to a lot of people for someone to just hurt people whenever they felt like it for whatever reason they felt like it.
Harming none is a pretty simple thing to keep in mind but it should probably be tailored to the individual. For instance, in a circumstance where it was you or someone else that your action would harm, who do you choose to harm (for the sake of the example you have to pick someone)? Do you hold yourself and your preservation about that of another? Does it depend on who the person is? Things like that.
It's certainly not a silver bullet of morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:22 am
I think that the Rede is poetic shorthand to reinforce what's taught during training- the problem to me is people taking the Rede out of context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:58 pm
The Rede merely says, if whatever it is that you want to do doesn't harm anything, then you can do it. It doesn't say that you are not allowed to harm anything. It only says that non-harming actions are allowed. That's it.
The silence on the matter of whether or not you can/should do anything that DOES harm something is particularly poignant and significant--it indicates a need to develop a system of ethics and critical thinking strategies for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:11 pm
Illiezeulette The Rede merely says, if whatever it is that you want to do doesn't harm anything, then you can do it. It doesn't say that you are not allowed to harm anything. It only says that non-harming actions are allowed. That's it.
I think you missed the point of the rant. Its not a question of whether or not you're "allowed" to harm things, the Rede is just advice after all and no one is required to follow advice ("rede" literally translates to "advice" or "council" ). Its the ANYTHING part that bothers me. (Just in case you missed all the times I repeated the word in large font.)
It is vertually impossible to go through life without ever harming ANYTHING. Every time you walk on grass you are doing harm to the grass by bending the blades. Every time you clean your kitchen are committing mass genocide against germs and bacteria (which are living things). -There are extreme examples, of course. But they still fall under the heading of "anything". Yeah, the Rede is just advice and doesn't have to be taken seriously, but it does seem (to me) to be asking the impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:37 pm
Renkon Root Illiezeulette The Rede merely says, if whatever it is that you want to do doesn't harm anything, then you can do it. It doesn't say that you are not allowed to harm anything. It only says that non-harming actions are allowed. That's it.
I think you missed the point of the rant. Its not a question of whether or not you're "allowed" to harm things, the Rede is just advice after all and no one is required to follow advice ("rede" literally translates to "advice" or "council" ). Its the ANYTHING part that bothers me. (Just in case you missed all the times I repeated the word in large font.)
It is vertually impossible to go through life without ever harming ANYTHING. Every time you walk on grass you are doing harm to the grass by bending the blades. Every time you clean your kitchen are committing mass genocide against germs and bacteria (which are living things). -There are extreme examples, of course. But they still fall under the heading of "anything". Yeah, the Rede is just advice and doesn't have to be taken seriously, but it does seem (to me) to be asking the impossible.
I think that you are misunderstanding me. The whole point of the rant is ranting about a flawed interpretation. I was merely expressing the fact that the standard interpretation is flawed, and I gave the interpretation that I think is most accurate, which is that the advice that the gods give is that any action that harms none is okay. The Rede does not say "you should not harm anything." I am well aware of the fact that Rede means advice. It matters not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:20 pm
AniMajor I think part of the problem is the use of an incredibly simplified version of morality as a personal morality by following the Rede. I would agree. I dont think most people understand just how complex morality is. AniMajor As I learned in Ethics in college, there is no perfect ethical theory. There isn't a set of rules that, by following, allows perfect freedom and perfect morality. At some point, it is right and necessary to impede on someone else's freedom of choice. To go along with that I have noticed that there is really no way you can fully understand an other person's ethical view. My professor taught me that there are ways around relativism when it comes to ethics and understanding ethics. I however have come to see that while you can use tools to get around relativism ultimately as with all of life all our views are ultimately going to be relative to yourself and your perception. There for there can not be one set of rules and ethics that every one can follow. AniMajor This is why I much prefer "Do as you wilt shall be the whole of the law", because it puts the moral and ethical burden on the person and makes the person decide whether their actions are right or necessary. Which if I remember correctly also goes on to say "love is the law, love under will". Which I think expressed the focus on the emotional repercussions of any actions we shall or shall not take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:44 pm
Vox_Draconis I don't adhere to the rede at all personally as I don't consider myself a witch nor a wiccan. I thought you considered yourself a witch at one time? Vox_Draconis I'm of the opinion if you cannot harm, you cannot heal and thus if you cannot heal you cannot harm. I would agree. When you think about it you end up harming the illness when you heal. Vox_Draconis For example I am quite prepared to work a 'curse' for want of a better term if it's going to take a dangerous individual off the street making the area safer for it's inhabitants though I know that I will face repercussions of some description further down the line and if it's going to keep people safer I will face those repercussions. To me that would be a protective curse, but it may be worth while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:12 pm
The rede is not a part of my personal beliefs/practices. Since my patron goddess is Ishtar, it's somewhat laughable to think I could follow it, even if I wanted to. Whenever I "harm" someone or something, I always thoroughly think it through. However, I think all decisions should be thought out carefully before being made, so this is really no exception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:41 pm
I'm going to have to agree with Illiezeulette here, lol. I think you're over thinking it. Illiezeulette Renkon Root Illiezeulette The Rede merely says, if whatever it is that you want to do doesn't harm anything, then you can do it. It doesn't say that you are not allowed to harm anything. It only says that non-harming actions are allowed. That's it.
I think you missed the point of the rant. Its not a question of whether or not you're "allowed" to harm things, the Rede is just advice after all and no one is required to follow advice ("rede" literally translates to "advice" or "council" ). Its the ANYTHING part that bothers me. (Just in case you missed all the times I repeated the word in large font.)
It is vertually impossible to go through life without ever harming ANYTHING. Every time you walk on grass you are doing harm to the grass by bending the blades. Every time you clean your kitchen are committing mass genocide against germs and bacteria (which are living things). -There are extreme examples, of course. But they still fall under the heading of "anything". Yeah, the Rede is just advice and doesn't have to be taken seriously, but it does seem (to me) to be asking the impossible.
I think that you are misunderstanding me. The whole point of the rant is ranting about a flawed interpretation. I was merely expressing the fact that the standard interpretation is flawed, and I gave the interpretation that I think is most accurate, which is that the advice that the gods give is that any action that harms none is okay. The Rede does not say "you should not harm anything." I am well aware of the fact that Rede means advice. It matters not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:21 pm
Loona Wynd I thought you considered yourself a witch at one time? I did once but not any more, I've grown and evolved in my spirituality and witch is a word that can't be used to describe me any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:43 pm
The Rede has no part in my life as I'm not Wiccan or anything remotely close to that. Hell, I'm not even eclectic.
But I do think that it is misunderstood and thought too much about. I mean what is The Rede but the Golden Rule in different text?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 4:38 pm
Salmenella But I do think that it is misunderstood and thought too much about. I mean what is The Rede but the Golden Rule in different text? You have a point. My thoughts on the Rede basically mean you have freedom to do anything that wont harm someone. Yet harm is never fully explained. I mean what you consider helping some one may infact be harming them. I don't use the rede. I do what I feel is the right thing to do with the right situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
