1
SoNGS Ethics 101
Copyright 2012 by the Shadows of Nature Guardians’ Steading
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 – Basic Ethics
Forward
Chapter 1 – What Are Ethics?
Chapter 2 – Classifying Ethics
Chapter 3 –Morality
Chapter 4 – Pagan Ethics
Chapter 5 – Thelemic Law
Chapter 6 - Pagan Moral Codes
Chapter 7 – The Wicca Rede
Chapter 8 – Asatru
Chapter 9 – Comparing the Two
Chapter 10 – The Kemetic Path
Chapter 11 – The Hellenic Path
Chapter 12 - Quan Yin
Chapter 13 – The Abrahamic Paths
Chapter 14 – The Ancient Celts
Chapter 15 – Secular Ethics
Chapter 16 – Putting Your Ethics to Work
2
5
8
17
24
26
28
30
40
44
49
54
57
58
62
68
70
2
FORWARD
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
This course is designed around a different concept of Man than the simple Body-Mind-Spirit common in
many pagan paths. This course adapts a different concept actually best referred to in a cartoon movie:
“Ogres are like onions. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. You get it? We both have layers.”
Well people are layered too. And while people can make you cry, or make you happy (preferably
without being cooked up in a stew), it should be obvious that we are complex Beings, with differing
layers to our Being. It is the differences within these layers that cause us to be unique, but it is also the
similarities, not only in the kinds of layers but within the layers that make us understandable. So this is
the model of Man we will adapt for this course: one of complex, layered individuals. Our “Onion of
Mankind” is shown on the following page.
This is not to say that the Mind-Body-Spirit concept is wrong. Just like most structures, it contains
elements of truth, but also like most structures (including the Onion) it is incomplete. If we look deeper
at the Mind-Body-Spirit concept, then we see that biology is the study of the Body; psychology the study
of the Mind, and theology the study of the Spirit. All are part of the Self, and all three disciplines need to
be considered in a discussion of ethics.
In the first part of this journey, we focus on the concept of ethics. Ethics are part of the next to the
outermost layer of a human being: values, abilities, philosophy, and lifestyle. They are reflected in the
outermost layer: behavior. People judge our ethics (whether we are thought of as right or wrong) not by
the deeper layers of our personal onion such as motivations and needs, but by behavior. We may say
that we are acting in a way that is for our own benefit by doing, for example an act of charity. Maybe we
do it because it makes us feel good. Maybe because by feeding that homeless man, it is less likely he will
steal from you. Whatever the reason though, the outside observer will see the behavior as altruistic, not
selfish. This is important to remember. Whatever the inner motivations and needs that may drive your
ethics, your code of ethics is reflected in your behavior. So when we talk of an altruistic act or a selfish
act or even an act of questionable ethics, we are not considering the motivations and needs of the
person. Ethics are determined by behavior.
This course is divided into four parts. The first part examines basic ethical systems. It is not meant to be
all-inclusive; there are other systems which can be ignored for now. We will examine types of ethics,
particularly contrasting the important branches of applied and normative ethics. Then we will examine
various pagan moral codes focusing mainly on the contrast between the two more popular ones: Wicca
and Asatru. Multiple ethical codes of established groups will be presented for group discussion.
3
In the second part of the ethics disciplinary path (available to Dedicants), we will propose a concept of
the Self based on the layered onion analogy that works outward from our Self (whether you define this
as Spirit, Soul or some other concept) to behavior. We will begin to understand how the interplay of
various elements of the Self interact to produce behavior and how that interplay related to ethics. Like
the proverbial ogre, our Selves have many layers and various aspects of our selves affect each one. This
part will rely heavily on psychology and end with an individual analysis of each participant.
The third part (available at the Apprentice level) examines recent (as in the past thirty years) advances in
modern physics; particularly in quantum physics and cosmology. We will examine how modern physics
not only allows for the existence of deity but actually requires that alternate realities (universes) exist.
We will begin to look at what constitutes a sentient Being versus a thing, what Spirit might mean and
what Deity might mean, all the while referring to scientific theory.
The second and third parts of this coursework are more critical than you might realize at first. If we do
not know our Selves, if we do not understand our relationship with the universe around us, we cannot
distinguish between a Code of ethics based in reality or in fantasy. A famous geologist once said that to
reason without data is delusion. Reasoning is part of building a personal code of ethics.
These three parts provide the foundation for constructing a personal code of ethics that not only is
achievable, but organic: that is, you will have to tools to refine your Code as you grow spiritually.
In part 4 the Adept build his personal code of ethics for inclusion in his Book of Shadows. Obviously,
there is no right or wrong Code, because each is individual.
4
5
PART 1: BASIC ETHICS
CHAPTER 1
WHAT ARE ETHICS?
From Christy Huelsenbeck, May 1, 2000:
“Ethics are defined as - a set of principles, moral philosophy, rules or standards governing the conduct of
a person or the members of a profession, human duty, a particular system of principles and rules
concerning duty - whether true or false, rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions,
motivation based on ideas of right and wrong, the philosophical study of moral values and rules.”
What is right? Ethics is not only following the rules, but also obeying the spirit of those rules. Being a
Pagan, especially eclectic or solitary, often means not having a clearly marked path regarding right and
wrong. We don’t have Commandments. Even worse, to my way of thinking, we don’t have a mythology
to provide us with metaphorical examples of good and bad behavior. We only have the Self.
While there are generally accepted community morals, it is personal ethics that make up who we are,
and these are not the same for each person. We would like to believe that our ethics are the correct
ones. However, we need to recognize that what works for us may not work for another. Each individual
must determine on their own what is right and wrong. Ethics are often guided by which part of the more
simplistic Body-Mind-Spirit concept drives us the hardest. Those who are driven by needs of biology: the
need for food, shelter, sex, etc. can be expected to have a different Code of Ethics than those who are
more driven by the need for love and belonging.
Thus, we can expect that your ethics are defined by the parts of the Self we will be studying in Part III,
and are reflected in your behavior. To start, we will look at various pagan ethics systems. But remember,
to achieve a spiritual path, you must develop your own set of ethics that define the way you live. No one
can tell you what your personal ethics should be. No one can understand your various layers of self we
will be discussing as well as you can. You cannot take someone’s ethics and make them your own. You
can, however, take parts of another ethical system and adapt them to your own.
In her book “Living with Honour,” British witch Emma Restall Orr defined ethics as “the line we draw in
the sand between what is acceptable in terms of behavior and is not from a personal or individual
standpoint.” She further states that ethics are an expression of deeper needs and motivations as
expressed in rules of behavior. In Part 2 of this course, we will examine needs and motivations, how they
determine ethics and define the Self.
Her statement of pagan ethics includes perceiving all nature as sacred, retaining personal responsibility
and autonomy within the community or web of nature. “…to live sufficiently aware of the currents and
tides of our own soul…” If we are to accept her definition, we first have to define the nature of nature,
the nature of man, the nature of spirit (soul) and finally the nature of Deity. These are difficult subjects
6
on which there may be disagreement (and that’s okay). We will consider these questions in the third
(and the most difficult) part of this course.
Now, can your ethics change? To the extent that we change, of course they can. In fact, they do, daily,
depending on our needs. To the extent that our community changes, so do general ethics change as
well. This is an important point to remember, especially when looking back at history. At one time,
slavery was ethical. We don’t consider it so today. At one time an old man marrying a very young
woman and bedding her was considered ethical. Today it is not. We don’t need to accept or justify
ethics of the past, but neither should we condemn our ancestors for their ethics. Nor should we
condemn ourselves for our past ethics. It is in the past.
It should be no surprise that we will spend a great deal of time in Self-examination, for it is the Self and
its complex play of needs, motivations, and psychic abilities that determine the decisions we make that
in turn direct our behavior. So an examination of those aspects of our true Self is a prerequisite for
defining ethical behavior. At various points in this discipline, you will be asked to complete a
questionnaire to determine your abilities and motivations. You will be asked to complete an exercise to
help you focus on a particular concept and how it will relate to your ethics. Then at the end of this
discipline, you will be asked to write your own statement of ethics for inclusion in your own Book of
Shadows. You must do some soul searching, and decide how you feel about things. You must temper
the knowledge you have learned and wisdom of your mentors with personal experience. You must come
to a point that you are willing to question what you are taught, to grow in your own Self. Examine your
identity, your own needs, your own motivations, your own psychic abilities and thought process.
Determine how you cope with your blind spots. Your values will come. And then use these values to
guide your behavior.
While you should also include the morals of your community in your ethical code, what do you do when
your personal ethics are in direct conflict with accepted community morals? What if you are in a pagan
community where you feel their morals are out of balance? Well, remember a line from the Bard:
To thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
-Polonius in Hamlet, Act I Scene 3
When assembling a course of this nature, it is difficult to keep one’s own commentary from creeping in. I
gave up trying. Just the very choices of the questions I attempt to raise for you will be a reflection of my
own value system. So when you see my ethics and opinions stampeding into the discussion like a herd of
rampaging buffalo, remember they are mine. They are not some Divine insight. Use them as a starting
point for your own examination, accept or reject them as best fits you.
If we are to proceed down a path toward Enlightenment, we need to stand on the shoulders of those
who have preceded us, to examine their work and decide its validity to our own path. In this course, I
will cite many authors and other people who have influenced my thought process, and my journey. This
7
is not a vain attempt at showing off my education. It is documenting as best I can (and as best I can
remember) the thoughts of those who came before me and influenced me as I travelled along the often
lonely path toward Self-Enlightenment. It is also a good reference point for you, if you wish to examine
the thoughts of others in more detail.
I also draw heavily on my own experiences of this life and lives past. My roots are deeply but not
exclusively Saxon and Anglo-Saxon. My family histories: stone mason, coal miner, and magician, vibrate
in the strings of my Being. My past and present life lessons echo throughout this document. I will not
speak as much of other important paths and Deities (like Quan Yin, for whom I have respect), because
they do not echo within my Being. I don’t know enough about them. As you examine your ethics, you
too will find that they are influenced by your past lives; remembered or not. So while you read my rants,
searching perhaps for that one scrap of Enlightenment to help you craft your ethics, discard what
doesn’t work for you, add what does.
8
CHAPTER 2
Classifying Ethics
Several classifications of ethics have been proposed in the literature and there appears to be no
agreement among various philosophical schools. In order to keep it simple, we will adapt a classification
that is easy to understand and follow. Generally speaking, all ethical justifications, whether religious or
secular fall into one of two categories: Applied Ethics or Normative Ethics. We will also touch briefly on
the concept of moral nihilism, if only to cite the dangers in being too non-judgmental of your actions or
the actions of others.
Applied Ethics attempts to define moral action in specific purposes. It is the examination of particular
issues that are matters of moral judgment. The object of Applied Ethics is to identify the morally correct
course of action based on pre-existing standards, where such standards exist. In a religious context,
examples of Applied Ethics include the Judaic Ten Commandments, and the Kemetic Declarations of
Innocence. In this application, applied ethics can be divided into duty-based and contractual ethics. In a
secular context, professional and business ethics are Applied Ethics.
Normative Ethics attempt to define, in general terms, what actions are morally right. This is the case
with the Christian Great Commandments and the Wiccan Rede. Normative ethics can be divided into
four categories: Ethical Altruism, Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism and Consequentialism.
With the exception of nihilism, all of the different ethical approaches have their place, and must be
considered together. Ethics are often situational. A starving man is more interested in doing what he can
do obtain food, without consideration of the general welfare of others. When an individual focuses on
one ethical approach to the near exclusion of the others, it typically does not end well.
Nihilism
Ethical nihilism, is the view that morality does not exist, therefore no action is preferable to any other.
This is an extreme position of situational morality wherein a person refuses to judge any action or
ethical code as morally right or wrong. Alternately, a nihilist might argue that all meaning is relative
depending on the outcome. This point of view is actually a form of Consequentialism, discussed later.
Ultimately, nihilism is self-destructive, for it argues that one should not judge what actions are
preferable to others. The nihilist argues therefore that actions are random, based on whatever emotion
or motivation dominates the individual at the time. This can easily lead to the conclusion that one is not
responsible for one’s actions, as no one action is preferable to another.
9
APPLIED ETHICS
Duty-Based Ethics
In their most simple form, duty-based ethics is obedience to laws imposed by some superior authority:
parents, churches, and governments all are guilty of imposing duty on the individual, either for that
individual’s “own good” or for the authorities own benefit. On a more abstract level, duty-based ethics
are subconsciously programmed into us by our surrounding culture or by peer pressure. Even if these
behavioral expectations are never formally voiced or written down, the social fear is that other people
will judge us incorrectly. This is often enough for us to impose a duty-based ethic on ourselves.
On an even more abstract level, duty-based ethics emanate from instinctive urges. These basic urges
override our normal rational decision-making processes. Many years ago, a football player, a budding
star with the Kansas City Chiefs, leapt into a pond to rescue a drowning boy, even though he couldn’t
swim. The football player drowned. He obeyed a "duty to instinct."
The bottom line behind all of these duty-based approaches to ethics is that some kind of force overrides
a person's normal judgment and compels him or her to act a certain way. Duty-based ethics are long on
obedience and emotionally charged values and short on reason. The "authority" of duty-based ethics
can be a wide variety of forces that force us to act a certain way independently of how we might
rationalize a situation.
Learning a duty-based ethical system is very similar to learning a language. You learn the rules and
vocabulary, when certain behavior is appropriate or required, and then you follow the rules.
Most ethical behavior of most people most of the time tends to be duty-based. It involves repeating
cultural norms and habits of behavior that are acquired from experience. Typically, the standard way to
counter a duty-based ethical system is to shift the argument towards normative ethical reasoning.
Duty-based ethics have their drawbacks. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, in 1789 said:
"No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law." It is partly for this reason that
10
Jefferson also wrote that “the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.” Sometimes the laws just get too burdensome or too rigid and social change must
occur. Our ethics and social morals often dictate whether social change results in leaders like
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison emerging, or Napoleon, Mao and Josef Stalin.
Not that duty-based ethics are always bad. Their rules can be very simple to understand, easy to
practice, and can be universally applied within a large society. A society requires a certain amount of
duty-based ethics simply to remain stable and operate efficiently.
Contractual Ethics
A contractual agreement is one that parties enter into freely stating they intend to abide by all
stipulations in the agreement. The agreement may be signed, as in the case of a home loan or marriage
certificate, or unsigned, as in the case of dedicating yourself to a coven or a Deity. In addition, some
professional organizations have codes of ethics which their members are expected to obey (or be
expelled, usually). The question becomes whether it is ever ethical to break a contract into which you
have entered freely.
I say entered into freely because there are many implied contracts into which we do not enter into
freely. A person born in the US, except under some special circumstances (baby of a diplomat being
one) are automatically US citizens. They have entered into a contract, but certainly not freely. They are
bound by where their mother decided to give birth. One could argue that a young child who is baptized
without their permission has been entered into a contract with the Christian God against their will. That
is probably why the Catholic Church at least, has a confirmation ceremony when the child is older (but
still at an age where they cannot enter into a written legal contract).
In its simplest form, contractual ethics is focused upon the way in which human transactions provide
value for value received, and rewards behavior that upholds or punishes behavior that breaksagreements. Adages that express contractual ethics include: "You rub my back, I’ll rub yours;" "one
hand washes the other," and "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." The negative
version of contractual ethics is expressed as "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth."
On a more abstract level, contractual ethics involves the concept of the "social contract." The U.S.
Constitution is an example of such a "social contract." The American people, through their
representatives, created a government and agreed to pay taxes to it and adhere to its laws in exchange
for such governmental services as national defense, running the post office, administering the courts,
and maintaining a police force. American law is heavily contractual in nature.
Other examples include: it is "okay" for someone to bash your face in if you, as a consenting adult, sign a
waiver form and step into a boxing ring. It is "okay" to let other people "take" your money, if it is done
through legalized race track betting or in bad investments made through a licensed securities broker.
11
In contractual ethics, something is "ethical" as long as the parties to an agreement meet basic tests
regarding their competency to enter into an agreement. Generally speaking, as long as someone is
informed in advance of a person's position, it is ethical for that person to assume that role.
In most religions, contractual ethics entail the way in which people make offerings of some sort to
appease or placate or ask favors of some Deity. For example, the medieval Catholic practice of praying
for a king (in exchange for money of course) to reduce the time he spends in purgatory is a contract
between King and Church (whether the Christian God approved is anyone’s guess).
There are advantages to contractual ethics. In order to competently negotiate in your own behalf, you
have to learn the value of things in an open market. You have to learn about the world around you and
determine whether or not you are getting a good deal. You have to learn to keep your guard up, lest
someone less ethical deceive you. Unlike the duty-based ethical standards which require obedience to a
set of rules, the contractual viewpoint emphasizes the hard-nosed concept of "Don't give anything away
for less than it is worth."
One of the biggest problems is that contractual ethics focuses on the relative strengths of parties to
enter into an agreement, but has no moral compass points for judging the relative moral worth of
different types of contracts. In the case of a politician that is bought by special interests, his obligation to
represent the most vital concerns of his constituents is a social contract. Which contract should take
priority: the campaign donation by a special interest or the politician’s oath of office? A lot of people
who focus exclusively on contractual morality have problems addressing this kind of question.
Another problem with contractual ethics is that people who find themselves in a weak or dependent
situation tend to get squeezed, neglected, and exploited for all they are worth. After all, if they have
little to bring to the negotiation table, why should they receive any concessions in return?
We all find ourselves in weak or dependent positions from time to time. Often we require other people
to put themselves into dependent and vulnerable positions to save the rest of us, such as soldiers who
go into combat to protect us against an enemy. If everybody took a purely contractual viewpoint all the
time, people would lose too much time renegotiating each new transaction and relationship, and we
would-quickly run out of the people necessary to take care of a lot of tough but necessary jobs required
to keep civilization intact and running.
NORMATIVE ETHICS
Ethical Altruism
Ethical altruism holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if
necessary, at the sacrifice of self-interest. Practical altruism sacrifices one's own interests to help others'
interests, so long as one's own interests are equivalent to the others' interests and well-being. A person
who holds to this ethic is known as an "altruist."
12
While there have been many good people who were altruists (the Catholic nun Mother Teresa of
Calcutta comes to mind), altruism is a most difficult ethic to maintain. Not all can “belong to the world”
as Mother Teresa described herself. Yet, at times all of us exhibit altruistic traits. We all have the desire
to help those in need. Most mothers will sacrifice their own life to save their children.
Yet, even altruism can have a Dark side. A suicide bomber, sacrificing his life for his cause, is still
sacrificing self-interest for the “benefit” of others; the hope of a harem-full of virgins in the after-life
notwithstanding. In fact, any soldier sacrificing his life for the greater good can be considered an altruist,
at least at the moment of sacrifice. In both these cases however, duty-based ethics dictate this altruistic
behavior.
Utilitarian Ethics
In its simplest form, Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues the rightness or wrongness of an
action is determined solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other
actions/policies. Many utilitarian philosophers judge an action by its usefulness in bringing about the
most happiness (or good) of all those affected by it. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own
interests and takes into account the interests of others. Utilitarian ethics weigh actions by their
consequences. Something is ethical if the total "good" it generates, to include intangible forms of
"good," outweigh the negatives. Statements like “An if it harm none...” in the Rede are utilitarian. It
prevents us from harming a large number of people to benefit what we may perceive as the greater
good, or for our own benefit.
Two influential contributors to this theory are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. While both
philosophers had decidedly socialist leanings, both were well ahead of their time on several concepts,
including that of women’s rights. Bentham treats all forms of happiness as equal, with goodness
measured in terms of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent.
Mill's famous formulation of utilitarianism is known as the "greatest-happiness principle". It holds that
one must always act so as to produce the greatest aggregate happiness among all sentient beings,
within reason. Mill's major contribution to Utilitarianism is his argument for the qualitative separation of
pleasures. Mill argued that intellectual and moral pleasures (higher pleasures) are superior to more
physical forms of pleasure (lower pleasures). This ties in neatly with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
(discussed in the second course). Mill distinguishes between happiness and contentment, claiming that
the former is of higher value than the latter, a belief wittily encapsulated in the statement that "it is
better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied."
Classical utilitarianism as espoused by Bentham can be hedonistic, but values other than, or in addition
to, pleasure can be employed. G. E. Moore, in his Principia Ethica (1903), presented a version of
utilitarianism in which he rejected the traditional equating of good with pleasure. The test whether
something is good can be applied to moral assessments and rules of conduct. According to utilitarianism
the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome although there is debate over
13
how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences and intended
consequences. Pagans have the same issues.
Utilitarianism can be tied to Naturalism, though Naturalism has less emphasis on the belief in Deity. In
fact Naturalism often takes the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate
in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the
natural universe. Naturalists assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and
behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.
In this sense naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose"
in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is usually referred to as metaphysical naturalism. Where
Naturalism fails however, is where science has yet to (or cannot) tread. Where natural law has yet to be
discerned, one has nothing but faith. The Naturalist therefore, cannot consider spirituality in their
ethical decisions.
On the other hand, theists challenge the idea that nature is all there is. They believe in a god (or gods)
that created or are a part of nature. Natural laws have a place in their theology. But, natural laws do not
define nor limit Deity: the primary cause.
One of the biggest problems with utilitarian reasoning is that the reasoning itself is nothing more than a
problem solving tool like mathematics or computer programming. If, as in computer programming, you
put garbage in, you will get garbage out. Be careful of your inputs!
Utilitarian reasoning is by no means a philosophy where everyone can reach the same logical conclusion.
Over the ages, people have had different ideas about what constitutes the highest good, and how to get
there. For example, John Locke put a heavy emphasis on the preservation of an individual’s right to
private property, whereas Karl Marx wanted to collectivize as much property as possible. Who is right?
We would likely argue the concept that promoted the greatest freedom, but both Marx and Locke
would have arguments that their philosophies do that also.
Utilitarian ethics strive to avoid I win- you lose scenarios, but must also consider the three other possible
win-lose combinations.
 In a win-win situation, the utilitarian has many ways to act "good," all of which create "good"
out-comes. The most "ethical" choice is the one that yields the greatest overall good.
 In lose-lose situations, one must select the lessor of evils. Either choice will cause harm (loss of a
breast or loss of a life to cancer is a good example), and the Utilitarian choses the least harmful
option.
 In a short term lose, long term win situation, the Utilitarian makes a short term sacrifice in hope
of achieving a greater long term gain. In this instance, the utilitarian must be very careful to
ensure that his goal is beneficial for all, not just for himself.
14
A primary advantage of utilitarian reasoning is that it challenges us to think more broadly about the
impact of our actions on the world around us, and encourages us to make ethical decisions on our own
rather than rely on government or our social circle to think for us. This ties into Kant’s belief that true
morality (ethics) came solely from reason. Remember his statement: “I ought never to act in such a way
that I could also will that my maxim become universal law.” In other words, whatever one decides, one
must be willing to accept that decision is true for others, as well as oneself. Kant’s belief is critical for
utilitarianists, for it helps to avoid the traps of ethical egoism and consequentialism.
When we set the right objectives and incorporate valid assumptions, utilitarian reasoning can be a very
powerful and necessary tool to help us reach our goals.
Another advantage of utilitarian thinking is that it gives us some flexibility. We can examine alternatives
and decide on the most ethical course of action. The utilitarian viewpoint encourages us to think ahead
and avoid the pitfalls the unethical people of the world lay for us. There are Dark people out there, even
in the Pagan community: those who use an ethical code that emphasizes short term gain without
considering long term loses. Pure utilitarian thinking can get us into as much trouble as pure duty-based
thinking. Balance is the key, based on a strong Code of Ethics.
Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is the position that one ought to do what is in one’s own self-interest. Ethical egoism
contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that one has an obligation to help and serve others and with
utilitarianism, which holds that one should treat one's self with no higher regard than one has for
others. Egoism elevates self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others. Egoism is focused
on the Self (or clan) while utilitarianism does not treat the Self’s own interests as being more or less
important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others.
Ethical egoism does not, however, require harm to the interests and well-being of others when making
an ethical decision. Egoism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as
what is decided and acted upon satisfies Self-interest. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily purport that
one ought always to do what one wants to do. It endorses selfishness, not necessarily foolishness.
American philosopher James Rachels argued that “each of us is intimately familiar with our own
individual wants and needs. Moreover, each of us is uniquely placed to pursue those wants and needs
effectively. At the same time, we know the desires and needs of others only imperfectly, and we are not
well situated to pursue them. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that if we set out to be 'our brother's
keeper,' we would often bungle the job and end up doing more mischief than good.” He also argued that
“All of our commonly accepted moral duties, from doing no harm unto others to speaking always the
truth to keeping promises, are rooted in the one fundamental principle of self-interest.”
While Rachels was a proponent of ethical egoism, he also noted that the best objection to the theory is
that it divides people into two types: themselves and others, and then discriminates against one type on
the basis of some arbitrary disparity. This, to Rachels’ mind, provides the soundest reason why the
15
interests of others ought to concern the interests of the self. "What," he asks, "is the difference between
myself and others that justifies placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy
my life more? Are my accomplishments greater? Do I have needs or abilities that are so different from
the needs and abilities of others? What is it that makes me so special? Failing an answer, it turns out
that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine, in the same way that racism is arbitrary.... We should care
about the interests of other people for the very same reason we care about our own interests; for their
needs and desires are comparable to our own.”
Obviously, Ayn Rand is a proponent of ethical egoism. Nevertheless Rand saw ethics as a necessity for
human survival and well-being, and argued that the "social" implications of morality, including natural
rights, were simply a subset of the wider field of ethics. Thus, for Rand, "virtue" included
productiveness, honesty with oneself, and scrupulousness of thought.
In his best known work, “The Moral Point of View,” Austrian philosopher Kurt Baier opines that ethical
egoism provides no moral basis for the resolution of conflicts of interest, which form the only
vindication for a moral code. Baier believes that ethical egoism fails to provide the moral guidance and
arbitration that it necessitates. Far from resolving conflicts of interest, claimed Baier, ethical egoism all
too often spawns them. Baier also argues that egoism is paradoxical: that to do what is in one's best
interests can be both wrong and right at the same time, depending on one’s point of view. Although a
successful pursuit of self-interest may be viewed as a moral victory, it could also be dubbed immoral if it
prevents another person from executing what is in his best interests.
All too often, we practice our own form of ethical egoism. We consider what works best for us without
consideration of the effect our actions have on others. Such behavior can result in divisiveness and other
undesirable outcomes. A Pagan is probably best served to examine his own ethical decisions by asking
what type of ethical philosophy he is using to justify action and then asking whether it is the proper one
for the situation.
Consequentialism
Consequentialism is the class of ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the
ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist
standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.
This is the dark side to Normative ethics best expressed in the statement “the ends justify the means.”
A completely ruthless Consequentialist acts only for himself has no feelings for others or society. He
does not hesitate to rob, cheat, and steal whenever he feels he can get away with. Many people not
considered criminals in today's society employ consequential reasoning that only factors in their own
gain and do not take into account the needs of other people. These people employ a short term win,
long term lose situation: they are greedy, enriching themselves in the near term while inflicting greater
overall costs to society. Unfortunately, we have seen this too often lately in our financial markets. Short
term win, long term lose situations are often created by people who lack the character to delay
16
gratification who are motivated by personal power or who do not, for whatever reason understand the
full consequences of their behavior.
Possibly the most evil statement of Consequential ethics was uttered by Josef Stalin: “It matters not if
three quarters of the world’s population dies, so long as the remaining quarter are Communist.” That
was taking “the ends justify the means” to the extreme.
So Which System is Right?
With the possible exception of Consequentialism (and nihilism obviously), the answer is all of them,
dependent on the situation. Most of us think of what works best for ourselves (or our group) first
(Ethical Egoism) and then (hopefully!) secondly consider what our friends will think or whether our
actions are illegal (Applied Ethics).
From the perspective of many pagan paths where Deity-imposed Commandments are not part of our
moral code, one more step is required: once an action is examined from egoism and applied ethics
perspectives, consider it from a utilitarian point of view. Is the action going to provide the greatest good
(or least harm) to all affected? Is there a short-term loss that will produce a longer term gain for all
involved? For a pagan, the action, once it passes egoism and applied ethical tests ought to pass
utilitarian reasoning as well.
ACTIVITY 1
On-line:
Meditate on past ethical decisions you have made and ask which category of ethical consideration you
used to come to those decisions. Which has worked out best? What decisions, had you considered a
decision from all ethical perspectives would you have rejected? Develop for yourself a checklist that
helps you look at the ethical decisions you make from the point of view of all the categories discussed
above and helps you consider your decisions from all angles. Add it to your Book of Shadows at the end
of this chapter. Write an essay of no more than 5000 but no less than 1000 words describing how you
think you ought to use the materials presented above to help you make ethical decisions. Submit the
essay to checklist to instructor.
Round Table:
Actively participate in a discussion of the ethical systems presented above. Each participant present one
situation they have experienced recently, how they made a decision at the time, and how they could use
the above material to make better decisions. As a group, develop a checklist to help look at ethical
decisions from the point of view of all the categories discussed above and help to consider decisions
from all angles. Each participant shall include a checklist that works best for them in their Book of
Shadows.
17
CHAPTER 3
MORALITY
Whereas ethics are personal, morals (or community ethics) are the ethical boundary lines we draw
around a group. Morality is almost always based in ethical egoism, because morals are defined as what
works best for a group or community. Morality therefore is culturally specific. We follow group morals
because of our need for esteem. Our desire to be part of a group is so strong that often we will do
whatever it takes to belong, often taking on whatever beliefs and standards are required. This can be
dangerous, as many adolescents who have fallen victim to peer pressure can attest!
Objective Morality
When it is said that morality is "objective" it means that notions of "right" and "wrong" are universal and
fixed for all times. What is considered "right" and "wrong" today will be that way for all times and has
been that way for all times previously and for all cultures. According to this theory, moral principles are
valid, binding, and true independently of whether any of us think, feel, or believe them to be so (or even
whether or not we exist!). These principles have always been valid; it is we as we evolve who are
discovering them.
Many atheists cite the “existence” of Objective Morality for their lack of belief in Deity. The argument is
the claim that belief in theism is not necessary to live a moral life. An atheist could follow the rules of
morality and not believe in the metaphysical basis of those rules. He would say that moral law is
independent of God and the need for God therefore does not exist. Morality is fundamental and
universal. But if it is, what characteristics must objective morality possess?
1. Authority. It is one thing to merely say what people should do, but objective morality must be
authoritative in that people really ought to obey it. The basis of morality must transcend the
authority of other powers if moral statements are to be objectively truthful. Otherwise people
ought to obey the authority of other powers instead of morality. So the basis of objective
morality not only says how we ought to behave but also does so with supremely transcendent
authority.
2. Universally binding. The authority must be universally binding in that it applies to everyone (e.g.
all peoples in all cultures at all times) regardless of what any one person thinks, feels, and
believes.
3. Infallible. The basis of objective morality cannot be mistaken on what is morally right, therefore
it is infallible.
4. Empirically detectable. Morality does no good if we cannot perceive it!
5. Exists whether there are humans to perceive it or not. Theoretically, if moral principles are valid,
binding, and true independently of whether any of us think, feel, or believe them to be, then
they do not require our presence to be existent.
18
This sounds a whole lot like God and a theistic belief system! The problem for the atheistic moral
objectivist would be trying to find a reasonable basis for objective morality that fits the above
characteristics but cannot be called Deity.
Some pagans have a belief in an All – we are all part of the All (thou art God/Goddess). If we are all part
of the All and if the All has an objective morality, why do we not all share in it? I have talked to some
pagans who have twisted their logic into a Gordian knot trying to explain how Evil can exist in the world
– in people who are part of the All. It is clear however that if All has an objective morality, All does not
follow it.
The concept of objective morality presents a problem on several levels as many behavioral scientists
believe our sense of right and wrong develop historically, and that it is open to change as we evolve
throughout history and as our cultures change. For example, the concept of slavery is considered
immoral in Western culture today, yet was not considered so when the laws regulating slavery were
written in the Talmud.
A more modern cultural example would be the use of child labor. Americans used child labor early in the
last century at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Today, Americans generally condemn its use in
the developing world. We apply our moral compass to a reality that is not our own when we do so. Let
us take an example:
When I had an office in a large city in a developing country, there used to be a little girl, probably no
more than eight years old, who would station herself at a traffic light, and juggle and perform acrobatic
tricks, then collect money from the autos waiting for the light to change. I once asked her why she didn’t
go to school. Turns out, her father lost his legs in an industrial accident and the family couldn’t afford
school for her. So I asked her if I gave her the equivalent of $5 if she would go home. She smiled brightly,
took the money and ran off. The next day of course, she was back on the street corner. And every day
thereafter, until the day she was hit by a car and killed.
Now we can rail all we want about the lack of a social safety net and that might make us feel good about
ourselves, but truth is, there isn’t enough wealth in the world to save everybody. So other values have
to apply in many cases. Would this little girl have been better off working in a sweat shop? Would
society have been? In a sweat shop, she would likely make as much money as on the streets, plus she
would be producing something of use. She would have had a safer job, and presumably a longer life. Yet
here in the U.S., we would condemn the “evil” corporations who take advantage of situations like this.
The people working in those conditions for the most part would not.
Others may argue that on the streets, she was, at least, free. But was she? Is dodging traffic, breathing
polluted air while trying to make enough money to buy enough rice and beans for her family to survive
really freedom?
The moral of this story is not that those who take advantage of situations like this behave ethically.
According to our morality, they may not be. The moral of the story is that ethics and morality are
situational. All the above arguments are applying someone else’s moral code to a situation which cannot
19
possibly be fully understood by those of us not in that situation. One must be careful when one
develops their own ethics to ensure that they do not impose their ethics on others.
Again, remember the words of John Locke: “Where is the man who has incontestable evidence of the
truth of all he holds? If nobody could ever be certain of what is true, how do we have the right to judge
others ideas as right and wrong?” The key word here is “ideas.” Locke is not saying there is no right and
wrong, only that we have to be very careful of judging others rightness and wrongness.
From a historic perspective, there have been several cultures where the population grew to the point
where their resources could not support them. Raiding and invading ensued. Were the raiders and
invaders part of the All? Certainly to us, to allow their people to starve would have been as immoral as
raiding and invading. But if there is an objective moral principle at work here, what might it be? Or is
this another case of our understanding of right and wrong changing depending on the situation and
perspective?
Our Moral Compass
One could argue however, that if morality was situational, it would be random. Yet, at least in this
century outside of some deviants, societal ethics are converging. So where does our moral compass
come from?
The short answer is that it comes in part from our Spirit, but it is refined from learning. When a baby is
first born, it is primarily concerned with seeking pleasure, avoiding pain. Its communication is rather
primitive at first, and somewhat instinctual. It learns what behaviors get it what it wants. Slowly, it forms
a set of rules as to what works and what doesn’t. As it gets older and begins to interact with others, the
rules become more sophisticated. Then as the brain develops and language is learned, it is able to
synthesize these rules into principles. For example: “if I hit someone else, they hit me back. It hurts!”
can be synthesized and refined eventually into “An ye harm no one, do what ye will.”
Obviously, as we progress through Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (In Course 2), our ethics become more
complex and our interpretation of the Rede does so as well. However, they all come from learning. And
our main teachers are our parents and those we interact with. Our ethics shape our actions in relation
to each other, and ourselves. They are a guiding force in the way we live our lives.
This brings up an interesting point for most Pagans (and for that matter most atheists). Most Pagans are
Pagans by choice rather than by birth, and have generally adopted this form of spirituality as adults,
after recognizing that more traditional religions do not completely address their spiritual needs, or
perhaps their perception of reality. Often, this is because they see hypocrisy between Creed and Action,
often it is rebellion inherent in the process of growing up. It doesn’t matter why. It is a fact though, that
most Pagans formulated their ethics with the help of parents and a society that has the Christian ethos
deeply ingrained within them. So did Crowley, so did Gardner, so did Valiente, so did Buckland.
This means that pagans often will revert to the safety and comfort of their childhood ethos, with its
black and white view of matters, rooted in Christianity. Our ethics, our interpretation of ethical
statements, like the Wiccan Rede, are colored by our formative years. It is true for us, just as it was true
20
for Crowley, Gardner and Valiente. One could argue that just as Protestantism arose from the decay of
the Catholic Church, Wicca arose from the decay of Christianity. If you follow a path with roots in
Crowley, Gardner or Valiente (and many Western pagan paths do), then you have to realize that their
beliefs were partially rooted in Christianity as well. We will see in subsequent chapters that this is true.
There is nothing wrong with this. There are many paths (Theosophy, Sufism, and Mahayana Buddhism)
that recognize all paths converge (and diverge). As all ethics are based on knowledge learned from
human transactions, we would expect convergent paths. Some people need a set of rules; others can
follow a philosophy. If you are reading this, it is likely that you are trying at least, to do the latter.
Fortunately, we live in a society that values freedom of religion. However, while that means we are free
to practice, do not believe we are free from being affected by the misconceptions others may have of
the Craft. Your own code of ethics will dictate how to react to this prejudice.
So as we develop our personal ethics, we need to be mindful of the morals of the communities we are a
part of. It should be easy to have respect for community morals within the community of Pagans,
though not always. Paganism is a series of very open paths and for the most part do not seek to make
anyone follow "COMMANDMENTS." Most of the morals defined by the pagan community deal with
harm to and respect for others and the paths that they follow.
Light and Darkness; Right and Wrong
But not all interpret “harm to” and “respect for” in the same way. We will delve into this problem later
after we discuss the Wicca Rede. The pagan community is in danger of becoming love and light and
brightest blessings: a place where negative emotions are discouraged. We are encouraged to walk in the
Light, loving all because we are part of the All, connected to each other and every living thing. It is true
that negative emotions and the behaviors that accompany them can be deterrents to developing a
sound spiritual identity and code of ethics. But these emotions are real and we all experience them. Like
all emotions, they are triggered by events, sometimes events beyond our control. The key is to recognize
these emotions in you and learn coping mechanisms for them.
The Brightest Light causes the Darkest shadows to be cast. Light and Dark define and complement each
other. Life and Death define and complement each other. The Divine Masculine and the Divine Feminine
define and complement each other. This is the nature of Duality. One cannot exist without the other.
Life is a balance between the two. To know the Light, we must understand the Darkness. Each of us
contains elements of both. We must learn to face both; to experience both; to understand and learn
from both. Life is not butterflies and sunshine all the time. A code of ethics needs to address how to
behave in those times when you must walk in Darkness. And the code needs to address how to recover
from the experience. Darkness does not equal Evil, though it can lead you there.
What is the difference between Light and Darkness? In a nature-based religion, part of the year is Light
(Ostara to Mabon); part is Darkness. Light is creative; Darkness destructive. Both are natural. This often
causes issues for pagans, especially those who the Dark Side and destruction associated with it are not
evil. Destruction and death are often necessary to achieve the greatest good (or least harm). Many
pagans have yet to learn this.
21
What of Good and Evil? When we say someone is evil, what we really are saying is that the person in
question has violated the moral boundary lines we draw around a group many times and in heinous
ways without remorse. It is human judgment that defines evil. Yet human judgment cannot be twisted
to mean that Evil does not exist. After all, our concept of duality requires that if there is Good, there
must be Evil.
But if morality is situational, is not Evil as well? The duality is morality and immorality, not morality and
Evil. The way Evil is defined above, in terms of violating the morality of a group, then we have to
consider whether there are groups that in their entirety have a morality that violates the ethical
boundary lines drawn around other groups. If that is the case, is the entire group that violates the
ethical boundary lines of our group Evil? These are not easy questions to answer. I tend to look at the
motivations of the group or perhaps the leader of said group to answer it. How would we judge the
statement: “It matters not if three quarters of the world population dies so long as the remaining
quarter is Communist?” How would we judge the execution of six million people based solely on their
religion? In the first case, it was not every Russian that was evil, but certainly the leadership was, just as
in the second case it was not the German people that were evil, but certainly the leadership was. In
both cases, while leadership was evil, the people were practicing their own form of ethical egoism (and
self-survival).
To determine what might be Good or Evil, we can ask a number of questions:
1. Is the person or group trying to impose their will on or do harm to another person or group
without the consent of that person or group?
2. Is the person or group acting in a manner publicly professing the greatest Good is being done
but is actually knowingly doing the greatest harm?
3. Is the person or group interested in power at any cost?
4. Do they seek to do harm if others stand in the way of their goals?
5. Do they fail to show remorse for the harm they cause achieving their goals?
If the answer to all (perhaps even most) of these questions is “yes”, then how else can you define this
person or group?
One of the things that Christianity and some Wicca have in common is the tendency to not give battle to
that which is Evil. Some, such as Scott Cunningham is his book The Truth about Witchcraft Today
presents a belief that “evil” people will just burn out because their ethos is not based on Life and Love.
Is this ignoring the duality of Good and Evil? I would argue yes. Is he right? Pol Pot died just before his
73rd birthday. Stalin lived to be 74. Hitler committed suicide at 56, but who knows how long he would
have lived if he actually won WWII? The list of people who did not live their life based on “Light and
Love” yet lived a long time is pretty long, and some of them did a lot of damage before they “burned
out.”
Some Pagans actually deny the existence of Evil, yet they believe in Good. This is not a logical premise,
for one is defined by the other. And the potential for Evil exists in all of us. Like Good, Evil cannot be
destroyed. But it can be defeated or contained.
22
Like Cunningham, there are those pagans who argue that no one is truly Evil, that some do Evil things
because of what happened to them in the past. Then, by the same argument, there is no Good either.
The “no Evil” argument does not mesh with the layered onion analogy of personality and character that
is being presented in this class. We will present a layered structure starting with the Self and working
outward through your needs, motivations, psychic ability, problem-solving ability to reach a values
system on which behaviors are based.
Personal responsibility is a very basic premise of most pagan paths. You are responsible for your own
actions, no matter what your past. If your behaviors are constantly harmful to yourself or others, if your
intention is harmful, then what are you? Bottom line: if you believe that there are Good people, then
there are Evil people.
Which brings up a tangential issue: the ability to choose between Good and Evil requires sentience. A
hurricane can no more be Evil than a carrot.
If somewhere along the line, someone choses evil, they are responsible for that choice. You will cross
paths with people who have crafted their code solely in baser systems such as ethical egoism or
consequentialism. Perhaps you will even cross paths with a nihilist or two. What sort of people should
you be wary of? Those that seek power above all. Those who seek control over others for the sake of
power alone. They seek to do harm when others stand in the way of their goals. What should you do?
Edmond Burke is often credited with writing: “All that is necessary for the triumph of Evil is that Good
men do nothing.”
The problem is that so much of the history of the world can be seen as a struggle between Good and
Evil. One can ask, “Who’s Good and whose Evil?” It is a fair question. Evil can be recognized by the
behavior in the preceding paragraph. Empaths can sense it, Intuitives know it. Time and again those
who profess to be Good seem to clearly outnumber those who are Evil, yet those who are Evil seem to
prevail far too often. Seldom is it the numbers that determine the outcome, but whether those who
claim to be Good are willing to stand up and defend what they know to be right.
Many have the mistaken notion that Good is merely the absence of doing that which is wrong. Wrong!
One is Good not merely because he does no Evil, but because he is actively working for (and sometimes
fighting for) what is Good.
Your personal Code needs to address how you will react to Evil when confronted with it. And you will be.
So back to the original problem: what do you do when community ethics (whether Good or Evil, for not
all Good is in agreement.) conflict with your personal ethics? Well, back to Polonius and the advice he
gave to his son: “to thine own self be true.” If what you are doing does not conflict with the good of the
community, does not manipulate or purposefully harm another person, except in matters of defense, so
long as you are not being malicious, then your personal ethics must come first. However, if your actions
violate these restrictions, you are not only harming yourself, but you are harming that person, AND the
community. And that would not be a Code crafted in the Light.
23
ACTIVITY 2
On-line
Meditate on the concept of morality. Do you believe morality is situational or objective? If you believe it
is objective, how do you define those objective morals? If situational, what principles should the group
(however you wish to define the group) use to make moral decisions? Write an essay between 1000
and 5000 words outlining your thoughts. Submit to your instructor and include it in your Book of
Shadows.
Round Table
Participate in a group of discussion of objective versus subjective morality. Write an essay on the subject
1000 to 5000 words in length for inclusion in your Book of Shadows.
ACTIVITY 3
On Line
This chapter presents concepts of Good and Evil and Darkness and Light for the first time. Meditate on
how you define these terms. Are they situational or objective concepts? Write an essay between 1000
and 5000 words outlining your viewpoint on these subjects. Include it in your Book of Shadows and
submit it to your instructor.
Round Table
Participate in a Round Table discussion on the presents concepts of Good and Evil and Darkness and
Light. Are they situational or objective concepts? Write an essay between 1000 and 5000 words
outlining your viewpoint on these subjects. Include it in your Book of Shadows.
ACTIVITY 4
On Line and Round Table
Too often we are confronted with situations where the morality of a group conflicts with our own ethics.
Begin to use what you have learned so far as a guide to your behavior. Specifically, when confronted
with this conflict, how do you respond? How should you have responded? In a journal or even in your
Book of Shadows, record how you acted and how you should have acted.
24
PART 2: PAGAN ETHICS
CHAPTER 4
PAGAN ETHICS
Many pagan paths consider two themes of central importance. The first is a belief in the profound
interconnectedness of everything in the Universe. This topic will be addressed in detail in the third
course in this discipline. The second is that there is nothing wrong with you or anything else in the
universe. This second belief, prevalent in many treatises on pagan ethics, gets many pagans into trouble,
because a key word is missing. There is nothing inherently wrong with you or anything else in the
Universe.
This is a key distinction. The Western view of man and nature is built on the Abrahamic belief in the
concept of original sin; of the fall of the rebellious angels, and on man’s dominant position in the natural
order of things. The pagan view is that man is not stained with evil, that Light and Darkness are both
complementary and necessary, and that man is part of the interconnected Universe. Let us take the
logic of there is nothing wrong with anything in the Universe and consider where that premise would
lead:
1. There is nothing wrong with anything in the Universe.
2. Man’s actions are part of the Universe.
3. Therefore there can be nothing wrong with man’s actions.
Where does this lead to? It certainly does not lead to a Code of Ethics based on personal responsibility.
In fact, it must logically lead to the conclusion that we have no personal responsibility, because there is
nothing wrong with what we do! Morality cannot exist, because there is nothing wrong in the Universe.
No need for ethics, no need for moral values, because nothing is wrong.
However if we say that nothing is inherently wrong that means that wrong can be done. If wrong can be
done, then ethics are needed to determine what is wrong and what is right. As we stated at the
beginning of the course, ethics are not inherent to the individual, nor are they a matter of motives. They
are about behavior. Therefore the logically consistent argument is that people are born with the
potential to learn to make ethical and moral decisions. People are not inherently flawed, but they can
become flawed.
Paganism begins with the idea that your beliefs are freely chosen. You are responsible for the beliefs you
adopt and responsible for your actions. When you make bad or unethical decisions, it is not because
you are inherently flawed. It could be for a few reasons:
1. Rather than considering the ethics of your decision, you reacted or acted in an emotional rather
than rational manner.
25
2. You made what seemed to be the right choice, only to discover it wasn’t. This happens. After all,
you are human!
3. The ethical decision making process you have adopted may be the problem.
With this discussion in mind, let us begin to examine the various Pagan Codes of Ethics.
26
CHAPTER 5
THELEMIC LAW
Aleister Crowley’s Thelemic Law
“Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.
Love is the law, love under will.”
The text that would later become the Book of the Law was said to have been dictated to Crowley from
an angel called Aiwass. (Later he and his students referred to this angel as an aspect of Crowley’s “Self.”
Jung would have called it an archetype.) However, in 1920 when Crowley set up his abbey in Sicily, he
called it the Abbey of Thelema, taken from Francois Rabelais' 1534 novel Gargant. (Note that while
Crowley’s pantheon was essentially Egyptian and he drew heavily from the Hindu tradition, Rabelais was
a Franciscan and later Benedictine monk.)
Thelemic Law is not suggesting that you can do whatever you choose according to your own desires.
What it suggests is that you should seek out and follow your own true path in life, discover what your
true will is and then live according to that, ignoring any false will that may be imposed upon you.
Crowley believed that each person’s true will was in harmony with every other person’s true will and
thus conflict and disharmony only occur when people do not discover and live by their true will.
Personally, I find that statement optimistic, as Self-will is shaped by Self and circumstance.
Circumstances are rarely in harmony.
To me, an important corollary to Crowley’s beliefs is that once you attain the age of majority, nothing
has power over you unless you freely give up that power. In part this plays to having a false will imposed
on you, but sometimes giving up that power is beneficial. A marriage for example, is giving up power to
another. Giving up power can be beneficial so long as you can take that power back. Sometimes
however, we give up that power to individuals who use it in a way that is destructive to your true Self.
Then sometimes it is a battle to recover that power. There is no more important lesson in my opinion,
than to realize that no one has power over you unless you have given it to them.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will" does not mean you
may do as you wish and that is it. It is speaking of your purpose in life. If you craft your personal code of
ethics in the Light, theoretically you should not come into conflict with another's will. Unfortunately, you
will. Theory does not always carry over into practice. Not everybody walks in the Light and even among
those who do so; we still have conflicts with people. One way to look at this is as a spiritual lesson for
either you or the other person. So don’t worry about harming another if you have crafted your own
spiritual path in a way that seeks to do the greatest Good. If you are seeking to control another or harm
another, you have not crafted your ethics in the Light. The objective of an examined life is to find your
27
true will and make all of your actions subservient to the one great purpose. This leads to conscious
living.
The root of Crowley’s law is essentially the same idea as that of the maxim “Know Thyself” inscribed at
the Oracle of Delphi. It is also described in the Gnostic Gospel according to Thomas: “What is within you
has the power to save you or destroy you.”
28
CHAPTER 6
PAGAN MORAL CODES
In the remainder of this section, we will examine two pagan moral codes in detail, while commenting on
several others. The reason for examining two in detail is because they provide a contrast on several
levels. The two in question are Wicca and Asatru.
Most pagans believe in balance. From the point of view of modern physics, balance is required.
I believe most would agree that Wicca has a close association with the feminine side, and many women
Wiccans say they are attracted to Wicca in large part because of its emphasis on female equality, divinity
and power. The emphasis is on the Goddess, and in most covens, it is the High Priestess that occupies
the top of the food chain. Dianic Wicca is the most feminist-oriented tradition of Wicca, in that it
emphasizes the Goddess alone and excludes men from covens.
Asatru on the other hand is definitely masculine. It has an emphasis on honor, and accepts that harm
can be done if the cause is just and honorable. Is dichotomy is worth exploring further, especially as
Wicca derives many traditions from Nordic or Anglo-Saxon beliefs. The religious calendars are virtually
identical. Yule is an important event in both paths. Many Wicca concepts, including the concept of
Divine feminine and masculine, the Lord and Lady, have roots in Anglo-Saxon, rather than Celtic belief.
Using the classification presented earlier, Wicca is definitely a utilitarian ethic. Asatru, on the other
hand, has strong elements of ethical egoism, as it focusses more strongly on honor and living a life that
is honorable. Asatru also has some elements of utilitarianism, as striving for the good of the whole is
considered honorable, though the whole may be more narrowly defined than in Wicca. Neither path
requires a covenant with Deity or a church. In fact, such a covenant could easily create conflict with both
the Rede and the Nine Noble Virtues.
The concept of balance may have first been mentioned by Aristotle in his discussion of the Golden
Mean. Aristotle's theory of golden mean is presented in Nicomachean Ethics, in which Aristotle
discusses the origin, nature and development of virtues. Aristotle believed that virtues are essential for
achieving Spiritual happiness; that being virtuous enables us to live in accordance with our nature, to
improve our character, to better deal with the inevitable hardships of life and to strive for the good of
the whole, not just of the individual.
The golden mean represents a balance between extremes, i.e. vices. Healthy eating is the golden mean
between gluttony and anorexic behavior. Yet, there is no universal middle that would apply to every
situation. Aristotle said, "It's easy to be angry, but to be angry at the right time, for the right reason, at
the right person and in the right intensity must truly be brilliant."
29
The importance of the golden mean is that it addresses the balance needed in life: in our case between
the Divine Feminine and the Divine Masculine; between Darkness and Light. It is a fine line we all must
walk. The line may not be in the same place for each of us. It brings up another engraving at Delphi:
"Nothing in Excess."
Aristotle also realized the importance of balance in nature and the tremendous effect it has on keeping
up so many forms of life in nature going. Since human beings are part of nature, isn't it reasonable to
believe humans should also uphold the balance, just like nature?
30
CHAPTER 7
THE WICCA REDE
Bide the Wiccan law ye must, in perfect love and perfect trust; Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill; "An
ye harm none, do as ye will; lest in self-defense it be, ever mind the rule of three; Follow this with mind
and heart; And merry ye meet and merry ye part.”
We will discuss the Rule of Three and Perfect Love and Perfect Trust in a bit. First let’s concentrate on
the Rede. The Wiccan Rede is at the center of the Wiccan ethical code. Wiccan Rede is just eight words,
though often written in the following two line rhyming couplet:
“Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil.
An it harm none, do what ye will.”
The word Rede actually means ‘advice’ and it is therefore a more sensible approach to look at the Rede
as a guideline and an ideal to strive for rather than a hard and fast rule. Nevertheless, it is a perfect
example of utilitarian ethics.
The Rede may not have been derived from Thelmic Law (discussed earlier). Gardner’s own words
explain the real origin and the intention of his version of the Rede:
“They [the witches] are inclined to the morality of Good King Pausol, “Do what you like so long as you
harm no one”. But they believe a certain law to be important, “You must not use magic for anything
which will cause harm, and if, to prevent a greater wrong being done, you must discommode someone,
you must do it only in a way which will abate the harm”. This involves every magical action being
discussed first, to see that it can do no damage and this induces a habit of mind to consider well the
results of one’s actions, especially upon others”.
(The Meaning of Witchcraft – Page 108)
Origin of the Wicca Rede
It is somewhat likely that Gardner did not write the Rede. While he was obviously influenced by Pierre
Louys 1534 novel, the actual Rede as we know it today may have been written by an initiate of his,
Doreen Valiente prior to 1952 and then incorporated into her writings.
The Bricket Wood Coven was critical to Valiente’s early development of the Wicca path. The coven held
a pantheon of a Horned God and a Triple Goddess. The Goddess was viewed as "the White Goddess", a
term taken from Robert Graves' book of the same name. The God was associated with fire, the
underworld and time, and was described as "the goat-god of fire, craft, lower magics, fertility and
death". It is historical fact that Valiente broke away from the Gardnerian Bricket Wood Coven in 1957 to
form her own coven with Ned Grove. While this coven was Gardnerian to an extent, but without
Gardner’s Wiccan Laws – saying she had had enough of the Gospel according to Gerald. Three years
31
later, she joined for a brief time the Coven of Atho. After Gardner died in 1964, Valiente joined the Clan
of Tubal Cain, a group led by Robert Cochrane. Cochrane’s craft makes for interesting study.
In 1963, Cochrane anonymously published an article in Psychic News entitled "Genuine Witchcraft is
Defended". In it, he stated that: “Genuine witchcraft is not paganism, though it retains the memory of
ancient faiths... [Witchcraft is] a very complex and evolved philosophy that has strong affinities with
many Christian beliefs.” Tubal Cain was a Biblical blacksmith. Cochrane's craft tried to blend both
traditional witchcraft practices that he claimed were followed by the traditional Witch-cult, but also
Celtic mysticism, that he believed the ancient Druids had practiced. Cochrane’s pantheon mimicked
fairly closely that of Gardner’s and included a belief that the God and Goddess had a son, the Horn Child,
who was a young sun god. The Coven also believed in getting closer to nature; something that Valiente
praised them for in her later writings. She left the group in 1966, in part because of Cochrane’s
promiscuity and the problems it caused, in part because of his drug use and in part because of the
continuous Gardner-bashing the group indulged in. Tubal Cain is still invoked in some covens (Caer Glas
being one) as a power of the north.
The first known public recital of the Rede was by Valiente in 1964, shortly after Gardner’s death. It was
published as part of a longer poem by Valiente in 1978 in Witchcraft for Tomorrow. It may have been
that Valiente wrote the Rede, but brought it into the public eye after she was dissociated with Gardner
and the Order of the Temple of the East. Or it may be that Valiente modified earlier concepts by Crowley
and Gardner to produce the Rede. We will likely never know. What we do know is that Valiente, more so
than her predecessors, is responsible for the propagation of the Rede and many other Neo-Pagan
traditions and that her version is an amalgamation of all the covens she participated in.
Date
Source
Quote/Notes
Late 4th
Century
1534
Saint Augustine of Hippo
'Love and do what you will'
Francois Rabelais' novel
Gargantua
1901
Pierre Louÿs's The
Adventures of King
Pausole (English version in
1919)
Crowley’s The Book of the
Law
"DO AS THOU WILT because men that are free, of gentle birth, well bred and at home in civilized
company possess a natural instinct that inclines them to virtue and saves them from vice. This
instinct they name their honor."
(Crowley's Inspiration for Thelemic Law)
I. Do no wrong to thy neighbor.
II. Observing this, do as thou pleasest.
(Gardner’s Inspiration)
1904
1956
Gerald Gardner’s The
Meaning of Witchcraft
1957-1961
The Old Laws, Gerald
Gardner's Gardnerian
(public) Book of Shadows:
(Section D.1 )
Doreen Valiente Speech
1964
1964
Pentagram newsletter
published by Gerard Noel
in UK
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Love is the law, love under will.”
(Possible influence on Gardner and others familiar with Crowley)
"[Witches] are inclined to the morality of the legendary Good King Pausol, "Do what you like so
long as you harm no one".
(This is the first book on "modern" witchcraft to cite the ethics of witchcraft. However, there is a
possibility that the Rede was written by Doreen Valiente in 1952 or earlier.)
"And for long we have obeyed this law, 'Harm none'"
"Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil, An' it harm none, do what ye will." Speech shortly after
Gardner’s death and may have been the first time Rede was mentioned publicly.
"Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil,
An' it harm none, do what ye will."
32
1965
1969 and
1971
Circa
1970/71
1971
1973
1973
1975
1978
Justine Glass' Witchcraft,
The Sixth Sense
Hanz Holzer's The Truth
About Witchcraft
Alex Sander's lecture on
the Book of Shadows
Stewart Farrar's What
Witches Do
Doreen Valiente's An ABC
of Witchcraft Past and
Present
Dr. Leo Louis Martello,
Witchcraft: The Old
Religion
Lady Gwen Thompson,
Green Egg magazine, Vol.
III. No. 69 (Ostara 1975)
Doreen Valiente’s
Witchcraft for Tomorrow
"The Wiccan Rede is: 'An ye harm no one, do what ye will.'"
Note wording is different.
Mentioned Doreen Valiente’s 1964 Speech and quotes the Rede.
"Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil, An' it harm none, do what ye will."
"the motto of Wicca: 'An it harm none - do what ye will." (Sanders founded Alexandrian Wicca)
"So I end as the Book of Shadows begins:
Eight words the Wiccan rede fulfill:
An it harm none, do what you will."
"[Witches'] morality can be summed up in one sentence, 'Do what you will, so long as it harms
none.'"
"Witch credo 'And ye harm none do what thou wilt'"
Last line of her Rede Of The Wiccae:
"26. Eight words ye Wiccan Rede fulfill - An' it harm none, Do what ye will."
"Eight Words the Wiccan Rede fulfil: An it harm none, do what ye will. This can be expressed in
more modern English as follows: Eight words the Witches' Creed fulfil: If it harms none, do what
you will."
Longer poem, the Witches' Creed also introduced.
Rede Of The Wiccae
From the Ostara 1975 (Vol. III. No. 69) issue of Green Egg magazine, in an article called "Wiccan-Pagan
Potpourri authored by Lady Gwen Thompson, we have a more detailed presentation of Wicca morality.
Being known as the counsel of the Wise Ones:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Bide the Wiccan Laws ye must In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust.
Live an’ let live - Fairly take an’ fairly give.
Cast the Circle thrice about To keep all evil spirits out.
To bind the spell every time - Let the spell be spake in rhyme.
Soft of eye an’ light of touch - Speak little, listen much.
Deosil go by the waxing Moon - Sing and dance the Wiccan rune.
Widdershins go when the Moon doth wane, An’ the Werewolf howls by the dread
Wolfsbane.
When the Lady’s Moon is new, Kiss thy hand to Her times two.
When the Moon rides at Her peak Then your heart’s desire seek.
Heed the Northwind’s mighty gale - Lock the door and drop the sail.
When the wind comes from the South, Love will kiss thee on the mouth.
When the wind blows from the East, Expect the new and set the feast.
When the West wind blows o’er thee, Departed spirits restless be.
Nine woods in the Cauldron go - Burn them quick an’ burn them slow.
Elder be ye Lady’s tree - Burn it not or cursed ye’ll be.
When the Wheel begins to turn - Let the Beltane fires burn.
When the Wheel has turned a Yule, Light the Log an’ let Pan rule.
Heed ye flower bush an’ tree - By the Lady Blessèd Be.
Where the rippling waters go Cast a stone an’ truth ye’ll know.
When ye have need, Hearken not to others greed.
With the fool no season spend Or be counted as his friend.
33
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Merry meet an’ merry part - Bright the cheeks an’ warm the heart.
Mind the Threefold Law ye should - Three times bad an’ three times good.
When misfortune is enow, Wear the Blue Star on thy brow.
True in love ever be Unless thy lover’s false to thee.
Eight words ye Wiccan Rede fulfill - An’ it harm none, Do what ye will.
1978 in her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow, Doreen Valiente presents a Witches Creed:
Hear now the words of the witches,
The secrets we hid in the night,
When dark was our destiny's pathway,
That now we bring forth into light.
Mysterious water and fire,
The earth and the wide-ranging air,
By hidden quintessence we know them,
And will and keep silent and dare.
The birth and rebirth of all nature,
The passing of winter and spring,
We share with the life universal,
Rejoice in the magical ring.
Four times in the year the Great Sabbat
Returns, and witches are seen
At Lammas, and Candlemas dancing,
On May Eve and old Hallowe'en.
When day-time and night-time are equal,
When the sun is at greatest and least,
The four Lesser Sabbats are summoned,
Again witches gather in feast.
Thirteen silver moons in a year are,
Thirteen is the coven's array.
Thirteen times as Esbat make merry,
For each golden year and a day.
The power was passed down the ages,
Each time between woman and man,
Each century unto the other,
Ere time and the ages began.
34
When drawn is the magical circle,
By sword or athame or power,
Its compass between the two worlds lie,
In Land of the Shades for that hour.
This world has no right then to know it,
And world beyond will tell naught,
The oldest of Gods are invoked there,
The Great Work of magic is wrought.
For two are the mystical pillars,
That stand to at the gate of the shrine,
And two are the powers of nature,
The forms and the forces divine.
The dark and the light in succession,
The opposites each unto each,
Shown forth as a God and a Goddess,
Of this did our ancestors teach.
By night he's the wild wind's rider,
The Horn'd One, the Lord of the shades,
By day he's the King of the Woodlands,
The dweller in green forest glades.
She is youthful or old as she pleases,
She sails the torn clouds in her barque,
The bright silver lady of midnight,
The crone who weaves spells in the dark.
The master and mistress of magic,
They dwell in the deeps of the mind,
Immortal and ever-renewing,
With power to free or to bind.
So drink the good wine to the Old Gods,
And dance and make love in their praise,
Til Elphame's fair land shall receive us,
In peace at the end of our days.
35
An Do What You Will be the challenge,
So be it in Love that harms none,
For this is the only commandment,
By Magick of old, be it done.
INTERPRETING THE REDE
Valiente's earlier book, An ABC of Witchcraft Past & Present, which was first published in 1973, had the
following entry on Witches' ethics:
“Witches do not believe that true morality consists of observing a list of thou-shalt-nots. Their morality
can be summed up in one sentence, "Do what you will, so long as it harms none." This does not mean,
however, that witches are pacifists. They say that to allow wrong to flourish unchecked is not 'harming
none'. On the contrary, it is harming everybody.”
This passage suggests Wiccan ethics prior to the 1980's were not “light and love.” Pre-1980s witches
balanced the nurturing aspects of Light with harsh reality of Darkness. The Rede had not yet become
universal and was likely one point of reference rather than a concise statement of an ethical system.
This is an important point to remember, as the Rede, taken literally, is not possible to live. It may not
even be an ideal to strive for.
Christy Huelsenbeck in her May 1, 2000 essay on Pagan Ethics and Etiquette states “Is this (the Rede) an
ethic we can ever achieve?” Let us go back and consider Gardner’s words on the subject:
“You must not use magic for anything which will cause harm, and if, to prevent a greater wrong being
done, you must discommode someone, you must do it only in a way which will abate the harm. This
involves every magical action being discussed first, to see that it can do no damage and this induces a
habit of mind to consider well the results of one’s actions, especially upon others”.
Huelsenbeck analyzes the Rede through the words of a coven High Priestess:
“I believe the Rede is a standard of living, like all ethics, and one that is an impossibility to achieve. The
goal is to live as closely to the Rede as possible. In the attempt to do this, we begin to analyze our
actions. We follow the path of LEAST harm. Thus, we begin to live conscious of our actions, and how
they affect the world around us. Here comes the REAL lesson of the Rede: It forces us to have personal
responsibility. Once you have acknowledged that the Rede is a goal to work for and not a given situation
and have taken of the blinders that let you go around smug and happy that your religion is so sweet it
makes your teeth itch, you can get down to the work of making your life an ethical one. What this
involves is considering each decision in the light of the Rede before you decide upon a course of action.
You do this by looking at all the possible consequences of that action and whether that will cause harm
to any, choosing the path that causes the least harm and, (THIS IS THE KEY) accepting the responsibility
36
for the consequences of your actions whether intentional or unintentional.” -Lark, HPS of Tangled Moon
Coven. (I believe this might be the same Lark that founded WitchVox)
The Rede is central to the understanding that personal responsibility, rather than a religious authority, is
where moral structure resides. Wicca, and its various offshoots therefore, is a path of personal
responsibility. Ignore the lesson of personal responsibility at your own risk!
THE RULE OF THREE
As written at the beginning of this section, “Lest in self-defense it be, ever mind the rule of three.”
Though he likely was not the first to pen the phrase, Raymond Buckland who wrote Buckland’s Complete
Book of Witchcraft is most popular for its popularization, at least in America. So this phrase: lest in selfdefense it be, gives the Wicca some exception not only to the Rede, but to the threat of karmic
retribution. It is curiously familiar to the concept of nine-fold return in business ethics.
The idea is that anything that one does may be returned to them threefold. In other words, good deeds
are magnified back to the doer, but so are ill deeds. The Threefold Law is sometimes stated like this:
Ever Mind The Rule Of Three
Three Times Your Acts Return To Thee
This Lesson Well, Thou Must Learn
Thou Only Gets What Thee Dost Earn.
Gerina Dunwich, an American author instrumental in the popularization of Wicca twenty to thirty years
ago has an interesting take on The Rule of Three. She claims it is inconsistent with the Laws of Physics!
Well maybe. There is a very basic law called the Conservation of Energy and Matter which states:
“Neither energy or matter can be created or destroyed, but can change its form.” Now to be sure, this is
first semester physics and applies only to ordinary chemical and thermodynamic reactions. But if karma
is energy, then she is right.
Energy and matter are actually interchangeable according to Einstein’s famous equation E = MC2.
Where E = energy; M = mass; and C = the speed of light.
Modern physics has discovered another way of creating mass. One can create any particle out of
nothing if and only if an antiparticle of the same mass but opposite properties (such as electric charge,
spin, etc.) is also created. And as matter and energy are equivalent, to create three times of an
equivalent anything from nothing without creating the equivalent amount of negative anything would
seem to violate the laws of physics. If karma obeys those laws, that is.
37
Which brings up the obvious question: “What is Karma?” Sarah Howe addressed this in a 2008 essay on
the Wiccan Rede. In this essay she discusses Karma in its Eastern and its “Westernized” form. She
defines the two forms like this:
“Western Karma: The idea that Karma is some sort of universal power that hands out punishments to
those who do bad things and rewards those who do good things.”
“Eastern Karma: The idea that actions have natural consequences and that by being mindful of them,
you can earn “good Karma” and thus earn a better future. However, failing to take into consideration
the results of your actions will earn “bad Karma” and lead to some sort of hardship as a result, whether
in this life or the next.”
The western concept of Karma as a power would make it something subject to physical law, and
therefore Dunwich’s claim would be correct. It also leads one to ask who enforces karma? Is there some
Supreme Being or Council judging our every action and handing out punishment and reward? If so what
are their rules or commandments? That idea runs counter to Wicca and Pagan belief.
The eastern concept is very much like reaping what you sow, a precept that applies to nature. So if we
take Howe’s definition of Eastern Karma then it speaks to how our choices are made. She looks upon the
Threefold Law as “simply being a completion of our choices, i.e. Course of action decided upon, course
of action taken, results of action taken.”
The logic here is a little fuzzy. It is much better to think of the Law as Dunwich does: "There is little
backing to support it as anything other than a psychological law." She believes that whatever we do on a
physical, mental, or spiritual level will sooner or later affect us, in either a positive or negative way, on
all three levels of being: body mind and spirit. This is certainly more satisfying than the concept of
introducing more bad karma into the world.
When I hear people discussing the Three Fold Law, sometimes I can’t help it – words go through my
head: “Instant Karma's gonna get you! Gonna knock you right on the head!” And I picture instead of
some bearded white guy sitting in Judgment on a Throne, some nebulous energy mass. But karma isn’t
that either. Perhaps the easiest way to picture it is this: if you send out negative energy, to maintain the
balance within you, negative energy is going to come back and get you – body, mind and spirit! Thank
you, John Lennon!
Another way to look at the Law is through the Anglo-Saxon pagan concept of Wyrd, which has a similar
rule of three: “That which has gone before and has led to where you are now; that which is currently
occurring and must be handled as it constantly changes, and; that which must occur as a result of all
these things.” The basic concept is that there are three Norns, female beings who rule the destiny of
gods and men (comparable to the Fates of Classical Greek Paganism). The three represent destiny as it
is twined with the flow of time. It may be incorrect to think of them in terms of past present and future,
rather they should be thought of all three representing destiny as it is twined with the flow of time.
From a scientific point of view this is more satisfying because instead of creating some kind of energy
38
threefold, we are introducing the concept of responsibility for one’s actions over time. No energy is
created or destroyed.
PERFECT LOVE AND PERFECT TRUST
While perfection might be too difficult a concept to live up to, it is easy to show love and trust in groups
where love and trust is returned: family groups, groups of friends, a coven or grove. Of course, there are
dysfunctional families and friends that betray, but for the most part, these are the kinds of groups
where we find love and are willing to place out trust. These are the groups to whom we willing give
power over our lives. And giving power over you is the greatest act of perfect love and perfect trust that
I can conceive of. For giving someone or some group power over you puts you in am extremely
vulnerable position. Too often we do this without enough due consideration. Too often giving someone
else perfect love and perfect trust is no more than the result of two sets of glands calling to each other.
These kinds of love and trust however, are not perfect. Too often there is still a fear of betrayal or
rejection.
It is an unfortunate part of the human condition that our hearts have the capacity to love more than one
person at the same time. This gets us in trouble because our language has no simple words for
describing different types of love and our hormones often perceive love in solely one way. The Romantic
languages are slightly better. I can tell the soul mate I chose to spend my life with: te amo – I love you,
and mean a love that has romantic elements and an interest in sexual relations. I can tell a very good
friend of the opposite sex, someone who is a soul mate with a different purpose in my life: te quiero – I
love you (literally it translates I want you, but that is not the meaning), meaning there is love and trust
but the romantic and sexual elements are not coming into play. There are similar words to describe love
for an older authority figure, for male friends of the same sex (females use te quiero) and some other
phrases for differing kinds of loving relationships. But in English, we are stuck with “I love you.” So when
you feel love for a person, try defining what kind of love you feel. It may keep you out of trouble with
your soul-mates!
Where Perfect Love and Perfect Trust should apply, and perhaps the only place is should apply is where
there is a bond of shared spirituality. Are you and that person walking down the same path, side by side
and hand in hand? Is that person a soul-mate?
We each have many soul-mates in our lives. Soul mates are not necessarily those with whom we have a
romantic or sexual bond with. It goes much deeper than that, to shared values and the willingness to
freely give each other power over themselves. This type of Perfect Love and Perfect Trust is not a
function of biology, or of pheromones. It is a situation where your very spirits are entwined.
Outside of these special relationships described above, Sarah Howe in her 2008 essay on the Wiccan
Rede offers the best advice I have seen: “Is it even possible to have any love or trust for people whose
motivations we don’t actually know, let alone perfect love and trust for them? It becomes a little like
39
the commandment, ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’. It’s a nice idea in principle, but does it actually work
in practice or does it become something unachievable, which we still strive for? Perhaps the best step
we can take is to be good people and to treat others with respect and in turn, earn respect through our
actions.”
ACTIVITY 5
On Line
In your own words (i.e. do not cut and paste from here), write down, using 1000 to 5000 words, how
you interpret the Wicca Rede, Law of Three and Perfect Love and Perfect Trust. Do these concepts work
for you? Is this a code that can be lived? Include this essay in your book of Shadows and submit to
instructor.
Round Table
Participate in a Round Table discussion of the Rede, Karma and Perfect Love and Perfect Trust. Write an
essay outlining your interpretations for inclusion in your Book of Shadows.
40
CHAPTER 8
ASATRU
Asatru is a revival of a pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon path that some follow in our community. The followers
of this path are called Asatruars or Heathens. Asatru literally means "true to the gods." It is a strongly
polytheistic religion based in the ancient Norse culture -- which gives them both their pantheon of gods
and their code of ethics. Asatru Spirit Beings are multiple, discrete, living entities. These are not seen as
“personalities” or “aspects” of a Duo- or Monotheistic Higher Spirit, nor Jungian archetypes. Some, like
gods and land-spirits, are discarnate. Others, such as animals and people, are currently embodied.
Some, like ancestors, have been both.
There are three focal points to the Asatru religion. First there are the gods. These fall into two
categories, the Aesir and the Vanir (there are also the Jotnar -- the Frost Giants -- but these are only
worshipped on an individual basis as part of one of the other two groups). Second and third, the Asatru
worship their ancestors and the land (and its spirits). The Asatru belief is in a divine energy or essence
beyond immediate human understanding, but interdependent with mankind. That is, it affects man, and
man affects it. They further believe that this divine energy expresses itself in the forms of the Gods and
Goddesses.
Heathens may hold different views regarding the Afterlife. According to some Heathen lore, the soul is
not a single entity, but a composite of parts both physical and metaphysical. The soul is typically thought
to have nine to twelve parts; however some Heathens combine some of the soul parts. Theoretically
then, these parts could split and maybe recombine? Could a soul be a combination of many parts of
different souls? These beliefs make sense since according to myths man was created by the gifts of three
gods, Odin, Hoenir and Lodur.
The Asatruar view of reincarnation is exposed in the concept of Apterburder (rebirth). Apterburder is
the process whereby the essence of a man is handed down to his generations allowing him to be reborn
later in the same kinship. Heathens believe that reincarnation happens within the boundaries of a
kinship, a genetic lineage, the grandson is the reincarnation of an individual from an earlier generation.
There may be something to this. On my mother’s side, I certainly identify with an ancestor from the 11th
century (a Norman); and with my maternal grandfather, a magician descended from a coal mining
family. My great grandfather in my paternal lineage was a stone mason from Saxony, Germany. I am a
geologist. Go figure.
The concept of rebirth however, includes a final destination: Valhalla: the most famous post-death
destination. The devotees of Odin who die heroic deaths will be his guests in Valhalla.
Asatru believers usually follow three types of rituals, the "Fainings," the Blot, and the Sumbel. The Blot is
a sacrifice to the gods of Norse mythology. A blot is an offering made to the gods, land, or ancestor
41
spirits. Usually, mead is poured out or drunk to honor whomever the blot is for. The intent is to
strengthen the ties with the gods, to give them thanks for gifts received, and to ask favors.
The Sumbel is a round of drinking involving oaths and toasts to each other. Sumbel typically involves
drinking, whereas blot traditionally meant a blood-sacrifice (among the Old Norse, this was an animal
ritually slaughtered and then consumed at a sacred feast).
More common are fainings which involve non-blood offerings made to the gods usually in the form of
alcohol. In practice, there are rarely any characteristic differences between sumbels and fainings.
Needless to say, Asatru worship services tend to end with everyone in high Spirit. Nevertheless Asatru
priests insist that one does not need to get drunk to practice Asatru. But it helps, apparently!
Like many other pagan religions, the finer points of one's world-view are not of the primary importance
in Asatru. Ethical standards among Asatruar vary widely as, like Wicca, they have no set of religious
prohibitions either. Ethics in Asatru are guided by a concept of personal wyrd, encompassing the notions
of both fate and luck. The belief in Wyrd — a concept of fatalism or determinism, is a commonly held
belief. People's personal destinies are shaped in part by what is past, in part by what they and others are
now doing, and by the vows they take and contracts they enter into. The Asatru greatest sin would have
to be oath-breaking. In Old Norse warrior society, breaking an oath of fealty was a very serious matter,
and the myths make strong condemnation of oath-breakers.
Asatru treats the concepts of Good and Evil in a situational manner. That meaning what is good in one
case will not be good in another, and evil in one case will not be evil under a different set of conditions.
In any one instance, the right course of action will have been shaped by the influence of the past and the
present. The result may or may not be "good" or "evil", but it will still be the right action. Actions are
dictated by the Nine Noble Virtues, and practitioners are expected to use their freedom, responsibility,
and awareness of duty to serve the highest and best ends. Of course, highest and best are individually
defined. Thus, the Gods of the Norse are portrayed as having no qualms with rape, murder, stealing,
cheating, lying, backstabbing, breaking oaths or anything else necessary to get themselves ahead if it
was the right thing to do, of course. A chief example of this is the tactics used to fight the Aesir-Vanir
War, a conflict around which much of Norse mythology revolves. Odin would give lengthy screeds about
honor and respect in one story, and then proceed to father children by rape in the next.
In Asatru, Nine Noble Virtues form the basis for action or lack thereof. Like the Rede, the Nine Noble
Virtues is a modern construct, but one with roots in principles found in the Havamal (Sayings of the High
One – believed to be Odin): a condensation of Viking age poetry. The poem, itself a combination of
different poems, presents advice for living, proper conduct and wisdom.
THE NINE NOBLE VIRTUES OF ASATRU
COURAGE:
By facing Life’s struggles with courage, we constantly extend our capabilities. Without
courage, nothing else can be done!
42
TRUTH:
Blind faith has no place in Asatru. No pie-in-the-sky; we must act in this world as we see
it and as it really is rather than calmly wait for the next
HONOR:
We must be true to what we are, and we insist on acting with nobility rather than
baseness. Our standards must be banners held high in our hearts.
FIDELITY:
We stand true to our faith and our values. Loyalty is the basis for all enduring human
activity, and we hold it in the highest esteem.
HOSPITALITY: The isolation and loneliness of modern life is not necessary. The willingness to share
what one has with ones' fellows, especially travelers, is a vital part of our way of life.
DISCIPLINE:
We hold to the discipline necessary to fulfill our purpose. We stand willing to exercise
the self-control and steadfastness necessary in these difficult times.
INDUSTRIOUSNESS:
Let us dare to be all that we can be! Let us take risks and taste the richness of
life. Passivity is for sheep. We refuse to be mere spectators in life.
SELF-RELIANCE:
We depend on our own strength and character to achieve our goals. We seek
only the freedom necessary to our quest, whatever it may be.
PERSEVERANCE:
We hold to our path until its completion and are not ashamed to be strong. The
cult of the anti-hero will find no support in us, and the gods we follow are not for the
weak.
One practitioner I know had this to say to me: “The nine noble virtues aren't something I think about
very much. I agree with them but it is a little like agreeing with motherhood.” Perhaps, but Asatuars are
hardly Boy Scouts either. Old Norse ethics were not commandments handed down from a God who had
written them himself ; nor were the gods in the least portrayed as perfect beings who followed these
ethics to the letter.
According to Patricia Lafayllve in her essay on Heathen Ethics, the four of the most important concepts
in modern Heathenism are as follows:
“Reciprocity. In order to form these good relationships, we engage in a system of reciprocity. As a
spiritual give-and-take, we make offerings and sacrifices to our gods in exchange — and in thanks — for
the many gifts they give us. In a down-to-earth sense, we give gifts to one another, exchange goods and
services, and thus maintain our friendships, family, and kinship bonds. Even the gods and goddesses
have obligations!
Hospitality. We Heathens take hospitality very seriously. The Hávamál has many verses dealing directly
with hospitality and its requirements, including offering guests clean linens and a place by the fire.
Taken alongside reciprocity, the host-guest relationship crosses into the sacred for Asatruar, for we
strive to be good hosts to all entities. We also strive to be good guests; a good guest respects his or her
43
host, cleans up after him/herself, and in general offers things back to the host at the time or at a later
date. This can include hosting an event or giving guest-gifts.
Frith. This concept is often explained as an inviolable peace occurring between kindred, family
members, and close friends. Frith does not necessarily mean keeping silent and peaceful. Arguments can
— and in Heathen circles, often do — break out over a variety of subjects without frith being violated.
These ethics build upon one another. A frithful guest maintains reciprocity with his or her host. A good
host maintains frith by engaging in peacemaking, if needed. We build frith with the gods and goddesses
by offering reciprocity with Them.
It is difficult to violate frith. A consistently bad person, a long-term liar, or one who violates hospitality
everywhere s/he goes is violating the frith. A typical response is shunning: the person is no longer
welcome in the community, and for a community-based religion, that is a serious thing indeed.”
In evaluating Asatru and the possibility of joining such a group, one should be very careful. Although
Hitler did publicly criticize Odinists, there are many groups that practice both Asatru and Neo-Nazism.
They can be identified by their statements like noting that certain “superior” groups are blue-eyed and
blonde haired. I found one reactionary Asatruar notes that “the word "Aryan" means "noble one" in the
ancient proto- Indo- European language, from which we get such place names as "Eire" for Ireland ("land
of the Aryans") and "Iran" ("Aryan land"). Some Asatruars abide by the notion that “the Aryan (or IndoEuropean or Nordic) peoples were noted for creating rationalistic and democratic institutions that
weighed heavily in favor of the human rights of individual Indo-Europeans wherever they went.” In this
regard, Asatru can be viewed as a form of ethical egoism, where the value of the Nordic-Germanic race
is elevated relative to other races. Ancestor worship certainly helps to create this perception as well.
While the above paragraph applies to only a small part of the Asatru community, it is prevalent enough
to take note of it, especially if one is looking to join with other Asatruars.
44
CHAPTER 9
COMPARING THE TWO
When one compares the Wiccan Rede with the Asatru Nine Noble Virtues, it is obvious that the latter
provides a more complete and comprehensive basis for an ethos. The principal themes are different and
substantially so. The Wicca has an ethic based more on the somewhat feminine qualities of nurturance,
and a practice of utilitarianism. Asatru is based on the more masculine concept of honor and a rather
benign form of ethical egoism (more tribal based and Self). Neither is balanced, yet together, the form a
balanced duality.
Many Wicca would disagree, citing the Eight Wiccan Virtues. These may have been derived from earlier
Virtue ethics, but were first formulated by Doreen Valiente in the Charge of the Goddess. They are
Mirth, Reverence, Honour, Humility, Strength, Beauty, Power, and Compassion. They are in paired
opposites which are perceived as balancing each other.
When one compares the Wiccan Rede with the Asatru Nine Noble Virtues, one immediately notices that
the principal themes are different. The principal theme of the Wiccan Rede is "harming" as in "'an ye
harm none". This is in fact more significant than first meets the eye. "Harm" not only refers to the
people with which we are in contact in society but also to "oneself", a fact often overlooked. The person
living by the Wiccan Rede must ask themselves "how, and in what manner my actions will harm those
around me as well as myself". Conversely there is no imperative to do any actions which will benefit
oneself, or those around, unless failure to act could, in some circumstances, be viewed as causing
"harm".
The Asatru Nine Noble Virtues on the other hand, make no mention of harm at all, but rather focus on
the concept of "honor" as the principal underlying theme for ethical action or inaction. This is in addition
to honor being a specific virtue in its own right. It would appear to me that all of the virtues listed in
Nine Noble Virtues relate back to the single underlying theme of "honor". The key question which an
Asatruar must ask is "Is it honorable?" and this is relevant to all of the Nine Noble Virtues.
Here lies one of the key divergences between the Wiccan Ethos and the Asatru Ethos. The Wiccan
concept of "harm" is extremely close to a pacifist perspective whereas the Asatru concept of honor in no
way excludes doing "harm" where honor demands it. Indeed there seems to be no restriction on "harm"
at all as long as the manner in which it is done is honorable and the reasons for which it is done are both
honorable and just.
Let’s look harder at the Rede. The person following the Wiccan Rede, must ask themselves "how will my
actions harm those around me or myself?" There is no imperative to do any actions which will benefit
the actor, or anyone else, unless failure to act could, in some circumstances, be viewed as causing
"harm". The Wiccan approach to ethics raises the question of "What is harm?" Who do I harm, and is
45
harm only physical in this context, or also psychological and social? What if not harming one hurts
another? How does one even get up in the morning, take any action without causing some kind of
harm? Nor can one stay in bed without harming oneself.
The Rede, says if it is not going to hurt anyone, it is OK to do. This is not the same as saying if it hurts
anyone it is not OK to do. The difference is very subtle. The latter says that any and all actions that cause
harm are forbidden. (Forbidden by whom?) The former allows for self-defense, defense of others, even
actions without the consent of others that may seem to violate free will.
Of course, this also depends on how one defines "harm". How do we know which actions will cause
harm and which will not? The problems of calculating the consequences on each and every occasion
would almost certainly result in you frequently choosing something less than the best course of action, if
you were able to act at all! I define harm as "deliberately hurting someone or something unnecessarily".
The two key words there are "deliberately" and "unnecessarily". Deliberately implies conscious intent.
You intend to cause harm with your actions, therefore you're aware of what you're doing and ought to
be prepared for the consequences. "Unnecessarily" implies that there are actions that will not cause
harm that you choose not to do.
Looking at my definition, you'll see that my concept of harm leaves out key things like killing something
to eat it, defense of another and self-defense. These are necessary harms. You must kill a plant or
animal in order to get the nutrition you need to survive. Sometimes you must hurt or kill something
that's threatening you in order to survive. It also leaves out unintentional things, like stepping on a bug
or accidentally running over a squirrel with your car. I believe that these actions come without
consequence.
Another vague point lies in the Rede’s definition of “None.” Restall Orr breaks down all everything into
two categories: Being and Thing. It is a somewhat simplistic approach, and a somewhat slippery one.
What is a Being? Some Paths, particularly shamanistic ones, will argue that consciousness is everywhere.
The Song of the rock gives it Will; the Song of the embryo gives it Will, etc. This is true to the extent that
everything has a Song, but is then, everything a Being? If this is the case, then the Rede is not only
impossible to live, it is inane. Life feeds on life; Will feeds on Will: Song feeds on Song. Perhaps we
should look at three divisions of Things: Sentient Beings, Non-Sentient Beings and Things.
If a sentient Being is defined as one capable of singing its own Song, changing the Song of the Universe,
unifying body, brain, mind and spirit in a Song that expresses a Will. Then we can define a non-sentient
Being as one that is alive, but is not capable of singing its own Song, and then a Thing as an inanimate
object. This can still beg the question of when a non-sentient Being becomes sentient; a debate fraught
with capriciousness. I am not ready to believe there will be karmic retribution for eating a hamburger
and French fries.
No discussion of Wiccan ethics would be complete without examining personal responsibility. Modern
Wicca seems to stress the harmlessness aspect of the Rede over the personal responsibility aspect.
Wicca has moved to an extreme: to the prohibitive injunction against ever doing any magick for another
without permission, since it violates their free will. Does anyone really believe there will be karmic
46
retribution for attempting to heal someone? What of the case of an unconscious accident victim and
family unavailable to ask - are we forbidden to act, even mundanely? Does the greater good require
doing nothing in this example?
To take the argument further, if we are all tied together in a great network called the Universe (or
Multiverse), then our actions, mundane and magickal, affect All to some extent or another. A selfimposed ban on doing something to another without the other’s approval, bans us from doing anything
at all.
What of unavoidable harm? What of actions which may cause harm short-term, but will prevent a
greater harm in the long run. When this is taken into account, then a great deal of thought must be put
into an action as to whether, if harm, could be caused, whether it can be avoided and, if not, whether
the harm caused will negate a greater harm.
You'd be hard pressed to find a Wiccan that doesn't believe you must take responsibility for your
actions. Even those who believe the three-fold return literally believe that you'll be forced to deal with
consequences. If you take it upon yourself to do something, then you must face the consequences. I find
this to be especially important with regards to magic. If you're willing to go the extra distance to take
magical action in a situation, then you must deal with the consequences as well. There is no such thing
as a free lunch.
The real criteria should be personal responsibility and consideration of the consequences of one's
actions before one acts. Sometimes acting means something will be harmed. Which is more important:
the greater good or the least harm? You reap what you sow, good and bad. This makes sense to me,
given the physical law of "equal and opposite reaction": whatever you put out into the world will also
push back on you.
It may not be right to manipulate people or situations to fit your best interests, but ultimately one has to
act in the best manner they see fit. No one can know all possible outcomes of what they do, magically or
otherwise, nor can every possible harm from actions be foreseen. In the end, all any of us can do is
make our best judgment, using our personal code of ethics, and trust that we have taken the right
course of action.
The Asatru Nine Noble Virtues on the other hand, make no mention of harm at all. In fact, the Havamal
frequently mentions battle in a context that can be taken as warfare – as in hacking up the bodies of
other sentient beings. Instead, the Virtues focus on "honor" as the guiding principal for ethical action or
inaction. The key question which an Asatruar must ask is "Is it honorable?" The Asatru Virtues and their
concept of honor does not exclude doing harm when honor demands it. In fact, there is no restriction
on doing harm at all if harm is done honorably and for reasons which are both honorable and just.
What is honor? I think it comes down to intent. If your intent is honorable, it is just. If something is just,
it means it is merited or deserved. Many pagans believe that what is merited by a person’s actions will
come to pass. I would argue not without action. It is not simply a matter of passively asking for "justice
to be done". Asatruars, like their Gods, take matters into their own hands.
47
Revenge on the other hand, is an urge to get even or to inflict harm in reaction to an insult. Asatruars
have a concept of face, and revenge is not out of the question for them.
It is very difficult sometimes to follow Wicca principles and very easy sometimes to follow Asatru
principles. Do we trust that the God and the Goddess will take care of it...trust that the Universal Laws
apply to everyone equally, or do we act justly? The Tao says that a Sage acts through inaction. If we
follow the advice of the Tao or trust that the God and Goddess will take care of it, then why act at all? In
my experience, the God and Goddess only help those willing to make sacrifices equal to their own.
How do we know when to confront evil? Do we rely on that quote incorrectly attributed to Edmond
Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of Evil is that Good men do nothing?” Or do we rely on trust
in Deity?
My advice is to use your psychic ability to connect to the Song. It will give you the information you seek.
Remember too, that the Song you sense may not be the Song someone else does. The Song might tell
you that inaction is appropriate, but may be advising another differently. How we decide to respond
tells us a lot about ourselves, what we give lip service to and what we really believe. It can be a valuable
lesson that can change our life. Perceive the Will of the Universe in its song, and follow it as best you
can.
What about the ethics of Wicca and Norse Deities and their relationships with mortals? Consider the
Norse Deities first. In their behaviors they exhibit the entire range of normative ethics from altruism to
consequentialism, but frankly, altruistic and utilitarian ethics are relatively rare. Their relationship with
man depends on bargains struck between individuals during a blot, with the only universal contract
being that those who die a heroic death will be Odin’s guests in Valhalla.
At first glance, the Wicca Lord and Lady aspects appear to be quite altruistic. The Lord, for example is
born, gives his energy to life and dies so that life may continue and is reborn to repeat the process while
the Lady cycles through the seasons as Maiden, Mother and Crone. If however, we examine the ancient
legends, the Celtic Gods on which Wicca is based were little different from the Norse Gods: they
spanned the entire range of normative ethics. Relationships with humans tended to be contractual in
nature, with men asking favors and paying some price in return.
However those who embrace the concept of the All see Deity as having many moods, roles,
personalities, and therefore ethics: from altruism to consequentialism. However, because the All
encompasses everything, believers may call upon any representations of the All, depending on which is
most relevant to their needs at the time. This form of Wicca can come very close to nihilism.
So how should we approach the Rede and the Nine Noble Virtues? The heart of the Rede’s ethical
message is that you are free to pursue your life so long as you strive not to be an agent of harm, treating
the Universe and yourself with love and respect. The Nine Noble Virtues provide us with a standard
against which to measure our character and behavior. Together they form a stronger ethical code than
either separately.
48
This brings us to the topic of blended ethics. As Pagans we are free to draw our source of inspiration
from any source we wish, from the Rede to the Koran, from poetry to science. There is something to be
learned in all paths. We are interested in Enlightenment, not dogma. To an extent, we are all eclectic.
Gardner drew from a wide range of sources from Hindu to Christianity. We should as well. So freely
explore any source of inspiration. Study a wide range of religious thought. Investigate other cultures.
Find what works best for you and weave it into a coherent and logically consistent code.
Activity 6
On-line and Round Table:
What is your opinion of the Rede and the Nine Noble Virtues? Is one or the other sufficient? Together
are they sufficient? Are there other pagans systems that can add to them? Or are there other systems
that better fit your personal ethics?
Activity 7
On-line and Round Table:
Now is the time to start a journal for eventual inclusion in your Book of Shadows. Some questions to ask
yourself for inclusion:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
What are my goals for next year?
What are my goals for the next five years?
What are my goals for the next ten years?
What, in my opinion, makes life worth living?
At my eulogy, how do I want to be remembered?
The ethical system(s) I follow right now are:
The ethical systems I want to follow are:
Once you have answered these questions, develop a plan for getting from here to there. Don’t worry if it
is incomplete or you don’t have all the answers. Plans change, but if you don’t have a plan to get from
point A to point B, chances are you will end up somewhere else!
49
CHAPTER 10
THE KEMETIC PATH
It is not our intent to examine every path and possible combinations thereof. However, there are people
in the area that follow the Kemetic Path, so a brief introduction of Kemetic ethics is in order.
Kemetic ethics are based in the Egyptian concept of Ma'at, which is truth, justice, order, and "that which
is right." In addition, Kemetics look to ancient Egyptian law texts such as the Declaration of Innocence
(also called the "Negative Confessions"), which contain a list of 42 sins a deceased person claims not to
have done, and the Wisdom Texts, which are pieces of advice written by Ancient Egyptians. Kemetic
Ethics therefore, are partially duty-based and partially contractual with their deities.
The 42 Declarations of innocence are:
O Wide-of-stride who comes from On:
I have not done evil.
O Flame-grasper who comes from Kheraha:
I have not robbed.
O Long-nosed who comes from Khmun:
I have not coveted.
O Shadow-eater who comes from the cave:
I have not stolen.
O Savage-faced who comes from Rostau:
I have not killed people.
O Lion-Twins who come from heaven:
I have not trimmed the measure.
O Flint-eyed who comes from Khem:
I have not cheated.
O Fiery-one who comes backward:
I have not stolen a god´s property.
O Bone-smasher who comes from Hnes:
I have not told lies.
O Flame-thrower who comes from Memphis:
I have not seized food.
O Cave-dweller who comes from the west:
I have not sulked.
O White-toothed who comes from Lakeland:
I have not slain sacred cattle.
O Entrail-eater who comes from slaughterplace:
I have not extorted.
O Lord of Maat who comes from Maaty:
50
I have not stolen bread rations.
O Wanderer who comes from Bubastis:
I have not spied.
O Pale-one who comes from On:
I have not prattled.
O Villain who comes from Andjty:
I have contended only for my goods.
O Fiend who comes from slaughterhouse:
I have not committed adultery.
O Examiner who comes from Min´s temple:
I have not defiled myself.
O Chief of the nobles who comes from Imu:
I have not caused fear.
O Wrecker who comes from Huy:
I have not trespassed.
O Disturber who comes from the sanctuary:
I have not been violent.
O Child who comes from the nome of On:
I have not been deaf to Maat.
O Foreteller who comes from Wensi:
I have not quarreled.
O Bast who comes from the shrine:
I have not winked.
O Backward-faced who comes from the pit:
I have not copulated with a boy.
O Flame-footed who comes from the dusk:
I have not been false.
O Dark-one who comes from the dusk:
I have not reviled.
O Peace-bringer who comes from Sais:
I have not been aggressive.
O Many-faced who comes from Djefet:
I have not had a hasty heart.
O Accuser who comes from Utjen:
I have not attacked and reviled a god.
O Horned-one who comes from Siut:
I have not made many words.
O Nefertem who comes from Memphis:
I have not sinned, I have not done wrong.
O Timeless-one who comes from Djedu:
I have not made trouble.
O Willful-one who comes from Tjebu:
51
I have not [waded] in water.
O Flowing-one who comes from Nun:
I have not raised my voice.
O Commander of people who comes from his shrine:
I have not cursed a god.
O Benefactor who comes from Huy:
I have not been boastful.
O Nehebkau who comes from the city:
I have not been haughty.
O High-of-head who comes from the cave:
I have not wanted more than I had.
O Captor who comes from the graveyard:
I have not cursed god in my town.
The Wisdom of Ptahhotep
Ptahhotep was the vizier of a Fifth Dynasty King, Isesi, and his tomb can be found at Saqarra.
“Do not let your heart become proud because of what you know;
Learn from the ignorant as well as the learned man.
There are no limits that have been decreed for art;
There is no artist who attains entire excellence.
A lovely thought is harder to come by than a jewel;
One can find it in the hand of a maid at the grindstone.
Do not let your heart become swollen with pride
In case you may be humbled.
It is true that one may become rich through doing evil,
But the power of Truth and Justice is that they endure
And that a man can say of them: “They are a heritage from my father”.
If you are resolute, acquire a reputation
For knowledge and kindliness.
Follow the dictates of your heart.
Let your face shine during the time that you live…
It is the kindliness of a man that is remembered
During the years that follow …’
This is just a small part of the wisdom texts of Ptahhotep. The texts deals with advancement in life
advising caution in speech, refrain from becoming hotheaded, always be cool and calm, put your
arguments logically, never lose your temper. Be prudent in friendship, there are other sections dealing
with good manners in other people’s houses, others dealing with table manners, the correct behavior to
superiors, peers and inferiors. Young men are advised to marry young, and to treat their wives with
solicitude.
52
The Wisdom of Amenemope (Eighth century BC)
‘The man who respects the poor is beloved of God.
Be not covetous of wealth.
You can swallow down a fat morsel,
But you may vomit it up,
And be emptier than you were before…
Better a single bushel bestowed by God
Than five thousand ill-gotten…
When you hear things spoken that are of good or evil report,
Reject the latter, as though it had never come to your ears.
Keep a sweet word ever on your tongue.
Never allow a division to sunder what you say from what is in your heart.
Do not say: “I have found a powerful patron…
Now I can play a dirty trick on someone I dislike”.
No, remember that you do not know what is in the mind of God,
And that you cannot know what may happen tomorrow.
Rest still in God’s arms
And your silence will confound your enemies.
Man is the clay and straw, and God is the builder,
Daily he destroys and daily he recreates…
Leave no one behind you at the river crossing
While you are lolling in the ferry-boat.’
Another papyri of wisdom text from the end of the Old Kingdom, preserved in two papyri in the British
Museum, both are written by the same scribe, a man called Duauf. It is sometimes known as the ‘Satire
on Trades’ or ‘The Instructions of Duauf’. Duauf is not a scribe or vizier, but a common man, who has a
son called Pepy. Who has been awarded a scholarship place and is receiving an education in the School
of Books amongst the children of the magistrates.
Duauf is anxious that is son take good advantage of this opportunity, that he should apply himself to his
books and schoolwork, and become a scribe. It was a way of escaping from all the other trades available.
The Wisdom of the Pharaoh Kheti c2070 BC
Kheti was a king of the First Intermediate Period.
The Judges who give judgment on the downtrodden,
You know how rigorous they are
When the day dawns for judging the guilty,
53
When the momentous hour arrives.
Woe results when the prosecutor is the Wise One;
Put not your trust in longevity.
Where these judges are concerned, a lifetime last but a single hour.
Man survives death.
And a man’s actions are heaped at his side.
One is faced with the prospect of eternity;
The person who makes light of it is an idiot.
But the man who comes stainless before his judges
Abides in the hereafter like a god,
Marching proudly forward
Like those who possess the keys of eternity.
Be not ruthless, for it is fine to be generous;
Act in such a way that your work will endure because it is endearing.
Speak the truth in your house
So that the great ones who rule the land will hold you in respect…
It is the inside of the house that compels outward admiration.
Do not exalt someone of noble birth
More than you do the child of a humble man,
But choose a man because of his actions.
The virtue of a man whose heart is just is more acceptable to God
Than the choice bull of the man who commits iniquity.
Unlike Wicca and Asatru, the Kemetic Path does sound like a series of Commandments, doesn’t it? The
path is based in applied ethics, and is a combination of duty-based and contractual ethical code.
54
CHAPTER 11
THE HELLENIC PATH
My personal knowledge of the Hellenic path ethics is very limited. What follows is a condensation of an
article by Reverend Andrew Campbell, writer of Old Stones; New Temples. Campbell is part of a Hellenic
Reconstruction group. You can read more about them at www.hellenion.org. The active Hellenics in our
community tend to be reconstructionists, relying on historical records and their own meditations to
build their paths. Other modern Hellenic polytheists are not out to recreate the ancient Greek society
but tend to draw ethical inspiration from the ancient Greeks and their pantheons (which varied from
city-state to city-state). Their ethics are based on the reality that mortal life is often harsh, but strong
social bonds based on reciprocity and self-restraint can mitigate some of the inevitable struggles of
human existence. As such, the Hellenic path does contain some elements of ethical egoism in that
friends are elevated above others. Like the ancient Greeks, you may find that various Hellenic groups do
not always agree with eachother!
Reciprocity
To most ancient Greeks, people fell into one of three categories: friends, enemies, and strangers.
Underlying all of these relationships is the assumption of reciprocity. Friends are those who help you
and whom you are obligated to help. Enemies are those who harm you and whom you are likewise
expected to harm, for doing so also helps your friends. Strangers or outsiders are those persons with
whom you have no defined relationship and will probably view with a mix of suspicion and generosity,
as they will you. Hellenion relationship with the gods is also based on reciprocity: offerings for their
blessings, gift for gift. This actually contrasts with Greek myth where Gods were generally feared and
cared little for man or mankind’s gifts.
Traditional Hellenic ethics teaches that there is no shame in interpersonal conflict or just retribution;
indeed, these are fundamental parts of life. Not only were the Greek Gods often in conflict and starting
conflicts among men, and they also engaged in behavior, much like Norse Gods, that might be
considered unethical by today’s standards. The Nemesis is the Greek goddess of indignation against, and
retribution for, evil deeds and undeserved good fortune after all! A Hellenion argument in favor of
retribution is that by not harming one's enemies, one harms one's friends, breaking down the
fundamental bonds of society.
The counterbalance to this seemingly harsh system is the virtue of xenia, often translated "hospitality"
or "the laws of reciprocity as applied to hosts and guests." To offer hospitality—food, drink, clothing,
shelter—is a sacred imperative overseen by Zeus and imposes certain obligations on both parties. A host
may not molest a guest, but neither may a guest steal from, or otherwise wrong, a host. A social and
ethical bond has been forged. Basic bonds between parents and children, hosts and guests, comrades,
55
and siblings are spelled out. To neglect these reciprocal bonds is to court disaster, for the gods uphold
these relationships as sacred.
Moderation (sôphrosunê):
Individuals must show self-restraint and Hellenic ethics puts a high value on moderation (except maybe
for Pan and Bacchus. To exercise sôphrosunê, one must be able to view a situation realistically and act
in accordance with the principle of moderation. This comes back to Aristole’s golden mean: finding the
moderate path between two extremes. These extremes may not be evils in the abstract, and indeed
sometimes the mean will lean more toward one than the other, but when moderated by self-restraint
and rational thought, they generate the best solution. So, for example, the virtue of courage is the mean
between two feelings, fear and confidence, but leans toward the latter. Again, back to Delphi and a
maxim above the Temple entrance: “Nothing Too Much.”
Yet even moderation must be practiced in moderation. In other words, there are circumstances in which
excess is appropriate. The worship of Dionysos calls for ritualized drinking, for example, and in this
context, one may choose to drink more than usual. But common sense and self-restraint must prevail:
for a recovering alcoholic, any wine at all may be too much.
Other Delphic Maxims
In addition to the maxims already mentioned in this course, there are copies of inscriptions from two
columns at the temple itself. These maxims should continue to inspire Hellenics even today – or at least
some of them should.
Aid friends.
Rule your wife.
Control anger.
Shun unjust acts.
Acknowledge sacred things.
Hold on to learning.
Praise virtue.
Avoid enemies.
Cultivate kinsmen.
Pity supplicants.
Accomplish your limit.
When you err, repent.
Consider the time.
Worship the divine.
Accept old age.
56
If we consider the Hellenic Pantheon, most are not concerned with the affairs of men, except as it may
entertain them (the exception being Hestia). They are mainly ethical egoists, and attempts at
contracting with them need to be approached cautiously.
57
CHAPTER 12
Quan Yin
The deity most frequently seen on altars in China's temples is Quan Yin (a.k.a. Quan Lin, Kwan Yin or
Guanyin). According to legend, she was a Buddhist who, through great love and sacrifice during life, had
earned the right to enter Nirvana after death. Standing at the entrance to Paradise, she heard a cry of
anguish from the earth below. She so loved humanity that she turned back to earth, renouncing her
reward of bliss eternal to bring relief to the suffering of those on earth.
Quan Yin is a shortened form of a name that means One Who Sees and Hears the Cry from the Human
World. Her Chinese title signifies, "She who always observes or pays attention to sounds," i.e., she who
hears prayers. Sometimes possessing eleven heads, she is surnamed Sung-Tzu-Niang-Niang, "lady who
brings children." She is goddess of fecundity as well as of mercy. Worshipped especially by women, this
goddess comforts the troubled, the sick, the lost, the senile and the unfortunate. Her popularity has
grown such through the centuries that she is now also regarded as the protector of seafarers, farmers
and travelers. She cares for souls in the underworld, and is invoked during post-burial rituals to free the
soul of the deceased from the torments of purgatory.
No other figure in the Chinese pagan pantheon is so well-loved and universally worshipped. She appears
in a greater variety of images, of which there are said to be thousands of different incarnations or
manifestations. Quan Yin is usually depicted as a barefoot, gracious woman dressed in beautiful, white
flowing robes, with a white hood gracefully draped over the top of the head and carrying a small
upturned vase of holy dew.
Quan Yin is the penultimate example of ethical altruism: the woman who made the ultimate sacrifice for
mankind’s benefit.
58
CHAPTER 13
THE ABRAHAMIC PATHS
Judaism likely originated as and cross-fertilized with a branch of Zoroastrianism: the dominant religion
of Persia from the 6th millennia B.C. until the invasion of Alexander in the 4th century B.C. After
Alexander, the religion fragmented into several sects and many texts were lost. Alexander was said to
have burned the two existing copies of the holy book; the Avesta when he burned the archives and
looted the treasury at Vishtaspa. Attempts were made to reconstruct the Avesta in the second century
B.C. and again in the 3rd through 7th centuries A.D.
Many traits of Zoroastrianism can be traced back to the culture and beliefs of the prehistoric IndoIranian peoples, as Zoroastrianism shares elements and even vocabulary with the Vedic religion. Thus,
the Abrahamic path had its roots in Persia; and, according to various Apocrypha; that is where the Beast
which will give battle at the end of times will arise.
The religion practically disappeared after the Islamic conquest of Persia in the late 7th century, though
Zoroaster or a cognate are regarded as prophets in Islam and the Baha’i faiths. The ancient religion
survives today in the Parsi sect of Iran and India. It is likely that the three Magi of the New Testament
who bestowed frankincense, gold and myrrh on the shivering Christ child (who probably would have
preferred a blanket) were from a surviving Zoroastrian sect. They were certainly from the East, and likely
Persian.
The religion is based on poems by its founder, Zoroaster and revisions, mainly done during the 7th
century reconstruction. The poems describe an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent Creator God,
Ahura Mazda, who is opposed by evil. Divine beings (angels) intervene on earth on behalf of the Creator
and in heaven on behalf of mankind. Zoroastrianism influenced both the development of early Judaism,
Hinduism and Hellenism (Heraclitus in particular, was strongly influenced by Zoroaster).
In the 2nd millennia B.C. Abram, Biblically the 11th in descent from Noah broke with the polytheistic
religions of the Babylonians and embraced a monotheistic God. This God then told Abram to leave his
country and his father's house for a land that He would show him, promising to make of him a great
nation, bless him, make his name great, bless those who blessed him, and curse those who cursed him.
Most likely this monotheistic Creator God was, or was inspired by Mazda.
Abram except for a brief period when his family migrated to Egypt to avoid a famine, settled in Canaan,
where the Creator God was called El, and the pantheon was called the Elohim. El was the supreme god,
the father of mankind and all creatures. Among his sons were Hadad, Yam and Mot, each of whom
shares similar attributes to the Greek gods: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades respectively. Elohim is the
singular and plural word for God. It is the plural of El (father of all Canaanite Gods). In Bronze and Iron
Age texts, Ugarit the El was the father-god and head of the pantheon. He was the defacto Creator God.
59
The 70 “sons of El”, make up a “Divine Council.” As the pantheon evolved, each of the sons of El was
given a “nation” as his charge. Yahweh was given Judea and Israel.
It was during his time in Canaan that Abram was visited by, and made a covenant with, a God that
promised he would become the progenitor of a great nation – eventually. This God then modified
Abram’s name to Abraham. Who was this God? The name can be inferred from a vision of Hagar,
Abraham’s Egyptian concubine. She referred to Him as El-roi.
Hagar later gave birth to Ishmael who is recognized as the founder of the Arab tribes. Thus Arabs can
claim a path all the way back to Abraham, even though they remained polytheistic for a thousand years.
To continue the Biblical story, Abraham’s tribe eventually did find their way to Egypt where they were,
as prophesized, put into bondage. Enter Moses in the 12th century B.C. Moses leads the tribe of
Abraham back to Canaan (which was still populated by Canaanites, likely including some descendants of
Abraham). On the way, he makes a Covenant with a God called YHWH (Yahweh) who had appeared to
him earlier as a burning bush. Of course, in the Elohim, Yahweh was a son of El and a tribal God. The
long conquest of Canaan and several surrounding areas eventually results in the replacement of
polytheism related to the Elohim with what is recognized today as monotheistic Judaism. The process
took approximately 500 years, during which Yahweh was recognized as the God of state, at times with
his consort Ashera, the Queen of Heaven.
That is more or less, the Biblical version. Archeology suggests a somewhat different story: that Canaan
was freed from Egyptian rule in the 12th Century B.C., but remained polytheistic. Yahweh was introduced
as the state God during the reign of King Saul, and eventually the remaining Canaanite Gods faded as
Israel assimilated their neighboring kingdoms.
When we consider the behavior of the above-mentioned Gods, we see a common thread of a Being
driven by ethical egoism and often resorting to consequentialism making a covenant (contract) with
certain tribal entities. The tribes were led by prophet-kings, who, because they were also more
concerned with their own tribe than a greater good, also practiced ethical egoism. The tribal members
of course, practiced a form of contractual ethics that did involve a combination of utilitarianism and
ethical egoism. It was Utilitarianism because the Commandments contain a strong element of doing no
harm; egoism because the motive for behavior was definitely personal.
Roughly 1200 years later, enter Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of a God that so loved mankind that he
sacrificed his Son so they could obtain eternal life. Christ never called God by name, except perhaps for
one time. In Mathew 27 on the ninth hour of the crucifixion in the Greek translation he cries out: “Eli,
Eli, lama sabachthani?” In Aramaic, the language that the Greeks were trying to transliterate, Eli is a
cognate form of El. At the time, El could be translated as “god.” It could be referring to the old pagan
God, the God of Israel or even the Creator God of the earlier Genesis chapters. At the time, the name
Yahweh was not uttered outside of the Temple at Jerusalem. Which God did he cry out to?
60
Of course, the Romans usurped Christianity and Roman Popes and their subordinates often practiced
consequentialism in the name of their God. The worst examples include the Crusade against the Cathars
and the Spanish Inquisition.
When talking about the Father, could Christ, who showed a combination of utilitarianism in His sermons,
and altruism in His sacrifice, possibly have been referring to a jealous and angry God who destroyed
cities and led heavenly hosts in battle? Or might He have been talking about the God of an earlier
covenant, possibly the God inspired by Ahura Mazda? The differences in the Codes of ethics are striking.
Six centuries after the death of Christ, a new Abrahamic religion emerged in the southern part of the
Arabian Peninsula, among the descendants of Ishmael. Islam represented a fundamental shift in the
relationship between God and His adherents. Muhammad was born to Abd-Allāh meaning “the slave of
Allah.” In a dream, the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and took him to Jerusalem where they
ascended into heaven. Gabriel then presented Muhammad with instructions from God in the form of
the Qur’an.
The story of Muhammad is significantly different from the stories of Abram, Moses and even Zoroaster.
Previously, it was God that came to earth to offer a Covenant to a chosen people. In Islam, an angel (and
one acting in a manner not consistent with his functions in other Abrahamic religions) takes the prophet
to heaven, but the prophet does not encounter God. Second, a Covenant was not even offered. Instead,
submission to God’s Will was demanded.
The basic tenants of Islam, the humble submission to Allah’s Will, Divine Ordinances and
Commandments defines the Muslim faith. It is a key departure from the religions that preceded it. Now
instead of a contractual relationship, the God of Islam, Himself following ethical egoism and sometimes
even consequentialism, demands duty-based ethics from His followers. Further, in spite of a golden age
of learning, the historic leaders of the resultant civilization practiced consequentialism in the form of
conquest in the name of Allah.
The Islamic conquest of much of East and Central Asia, North Africa and parts of Europe followed by the
Christian counter-attack of the Crusades and Reconquista are well-documented and lasted well into the
Renaissance and colonial periods. It can fairly be said that the ethics practiced by both religions during
the Middle Ages was heavily consequential in nature, in spite of the ethics that the Gods in question
required of their followers.
A discussion of the Abrahamic religions would be incomplete without mentioning the Baha’i sect. The
Baha’i Faith was founded by Bahá'u'lláh in 19th-century Persia, emphasizing the spiritual unity of all
humankind. To the Baha’i, religious history unfolded through a series of prophets, each of whom
established a religion that suited the needs of the time, and the capacity of people to grasp it. It is very
close to the Sufi or Mahayana Buddhism as it also embraces non-Abrahamic prophets. This notion of
progressive religious revelation result in the acceptance of most of the world's religions,
Humanity is understood to be in a process of collective evolution, and the need of the present time is for
the gradual establishment of peace, justice and unity on a global scale. Shoghi Effendi, the appointed
61
head of the religion from 1921 to 1957, wrote the following summary of what he considered to be the
distinguishing principles of Baha’i teachings:
“The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire
human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions;
the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony
which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which
the bird of humankind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a
universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a
world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in
the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human
society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment
of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the
essential elements.”
The Baha’i teachings speak of both a “Greater Covenant”, being universal and endless, and a “Lesser
Covenant”, being unique to each religion. The Lesser Covenant is an agreement between a prophet and
his followers. The Greater Covenant is viewed as a more enduring agreement between God and
humankind, where a Prophet is expected to come to humanity about every thousand years, at times of
turmoil and uncertainty, to renew and revitalize the Covent between God and humankind.
The ethics of Baha’i are substantially different from those of previous Abrahamic religions. The behavior
of God is unknowable, and therefore his motivations are unknown. His ethics are unknown, but
presumably, based on the ethics of the Prophet, are purely Utilitarian. The Baha’i have a covenant with
this God, and also with his prophets.
62
CHAPTER 13
THE ANCIENT CELTS
Archeological and genetic evidence suggests the Celts, or their immediate ancestors have been around a
long time: at least 30,000 years. We know from archeology that the culture once spanned from the
British Isles eastward across Europe north of the Alps into the Danube Valley and Bulgaria, Solvenia and
much of what is now occupied by southern Slavic peoples. They occupied the Po River Valley in northern
Italy and may have extended to the Tarim Basin in present-day Western China.
With such a wide geographic extent, it is reasonable to suppose that there may have been substantial
theological differences. That may or may not be the case; our knowledge of ancient Celtic cultures is
incomplete. What we do know is that a Celtic or proto-Celtic groups occupied the British Isles
intermittently for almost 30,000 years. In 24,000 B.C., the weather in northern Europe definitely started
worsening. Snow remained on the ground all year and eventually glaciers covered most of northern
Europe. Change is the most constant thing about climate, and by 11,000 B.C. much of Europe, including
the British Isles, was ice-free. In fact, until 3,200 B.C. average temperatures were two to three degrees
warmer than today, allowing a vast wild wood to cover most of the land. The peat bogs of Scotland and
Ireland are remains of this vast forest.
As the ice retreated, people returned, likely following the coastline in long leather boats called curraghs.
Who were these people? For the answer to this question we have to thank Oxford geneticist Bryan
Sykes. The results of his work are incredible. In his 2006 book “Blood of the Isles,” Sykes presents
genetic research from the study of mitochondrial DNA and to a lesser extent Y chromosome DNA that
supports the following conclusions:
1. The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the
Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the
female line, i.e. those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts were there
since the repopulation of the Isles nearly 10,000 years ago.
2. The British Celts are more genetically similar to the Basques. The contribution of the Celts of
central Europe to the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland was minimal; most of the genetic
contribution to the British Isles of those we think of as Celtic, came from the Atlantic seaboard,
particularly from southern France and northern Spain at the end of the last Ice Age.
3. The Picts were not a separate people: the genetic makeup of the formerly Pictish areas of
Scotland shows no significant differences from the general profile of the rest of Britain. The two
"Pictland" regions are Tayside and Grampian.
4. The Anglo-Saxons are supposed, by some, to have made a substantial contribution to the
genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes's opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in
southern England.
5. The Vikings (Danes and Norwegians) also made a substantial contribution, which is concentrated
in central, northern, and eastern England - the territories of the ancient Danelaw. There is a very
63
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
heavy Viking contribution in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, in the vicinity of 40 percent.
Women as well as men contributed substantially in all these areas, showing that the Vikings
engaged in large-scale settlement.
The Norman contribution was extremely small, on the order of 2 percent.
There are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.
In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains
overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with
Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean.
There is a difference between the genetic histories of men and women in Britain and Ireland.
The matrilineages show a mixture of original Mesolithic inhabitants and later Neolithic arrivals
from Iberia, whereas the patrilineages are much more strongly correlated with Iberia. This
suggests replacement of much of the original male population by new arrivals with a more
powerful social organization.
There is evidence for some male lineages in ancient times were much more successful than
others in leaving large numbers of descendants; e.g. Niall of the Nine Hostages in 4th and 5th
century Ireland and Somerled in 12th century Scotland.
There was no evidence at all of a large-scale arrival from the heartland of the Celts of central
Europe amongst the paternal genetic ancestry of the Isles. There is evidence of a large scale
arrival of a group originating in Mesopotamia.
In his book 2001 “The Seven Daughters of Eve,” Sykes reports on the classification of all modern
Europeans into seven groups, the “mitochondrial haplogroups.” Each haplogroup is defined by a set of
characteristic mutations on the mitochondrial genome, and can be traced along a person's maternal line
to a specific prehistoric woman. Sykes refers to these women as "clan mothers", though these women
did not all live concurrently. The oldest genetic line goes back 45,000 years and the most recent 10,000.
The clan founders are shown to be all specific individual women and are glamorously named Katrine,
Xenia, Jasmine, Velda, Ursula, Tara, and Helena. All these women in turn shared a common maternal
ancestor, the Mitochondrial Eve.
Sykes wrote in the book that there were seven major mitochondrial lineages for modern Europeans,
though he subsequently wrote that with the additional data from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, an
eighth clan mother for Europe can be identified. Of the original seven clan mothers, six of the seven
clusters are dated to being in Europe greater than 10,000 years ago and one, representing about 20% of
the population originated in modern Iraq (along with agriculture). Others now put the number at 10 to
12.
Likewise, Sykes has invented names for an additional 29 "clan mothers" worldwide, each corresponding
to a different haplogroup identified by geneticists.
The conclusions of the book are interesting. About 47% of all Europeans can trace their roots back to the
Dordogne River Valley of Southern France. (Dordogne is derived from the pre-Celtic root dur-.) This is
not surprising. Even in the Middle Ages, France was one of the most populous countries in Europe.
64
Specifically, 80% of Scots are direct descendants of an Ice Age people who lived in Scotland 10,000 years
ago. This is somewhat surprising, as conventional wisdom has the Scoti emigrating from Ireland.
Agriculture spread from the area of the Middle East along two routes. The Europeans related to the
Jasmine clan mother group (which originated in Mesopotamia) spread in part by sea, likely reaching
Scotland about 4000 B.C., along with the arrival of agriculture, the building of timber long houses and
pottery. A second branch spread northwest through the Balkans and Baltic, reaching the Rhine about
1000 years earlier.
Genetics have proved is that the Celts of the Balkans are genetically unrelated to the Celts in the British
Isles. Being Celt was a matter of culture, not of genes. It may be a culture spread in part by the Jasmine
group, though stories from the Insular Celts suggest assimilation rather than replacement, at least in the
British Isles.
Archeology provides other clues. Antlers discovered in Star Carr in Yorkshire dated to 9000 B.C. had
holes drilled in the skull bones and were shaved down to make them lighter. They were used as a head
dress. This suggests a Cernunnos-like cult that is 11,000 years old.
The arrival of farming also brought the process of excarnation: the procedure of placing corpses on
raised platforms to be stripped of the soft parts by carrion birds. Only a select few appear to have been
buried after excarnation (and often in the raised ledges used for beds in round houses) while many more
seem to have been thrown into midden heaps. Burial mounds were placed to mark territory: an
important consideration during the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture. What is interesting
is that the skeletons from this period show differing degrees of weathering, suggesting perhaps a
common burial date when the veil between this world and the Afterlife was easier to penetrate. Maybe
this indicated the beginnings of Samhain?
About 2500 B.C. at the beginning of the Bronze Age, beliefs in Scotland changed. More bodies were
buried in graves with food and drink. Today, Samhain or Dia de Los Muertos in the Mediterranean
culture is a day of feasting with the dead, eating their favorite meals.
In Cladh Hallen in 1500 B.C., bodies were mummified by placing them in bogs and then were kept above
ground for 300 to 500 years after death before they were finally buried. In fact, DNA testing showed
that one of these bodies was a direct ancestor of one of the citizens of the town!
Then in 1200 BC, there appears to have been a further change. Previously, there was archeological
evidence of celebrations related to solar and therefore agricultural events: the equinoxes and solstices.
After the eruption of Hekla volcano in Iceland in about 1200 B.C., the archeological evidence suggests a
shift to celebrations related to stock behavior: the lactating of lambs at Imbolc and driving the herds to
the Highlands on Beltane.
What seems to be missing from the older archeological evidence; and in fact from myth that might have
very ancient roots, is the concept of a Triple Goddess. It was not until the Roman conquest that Triple
Goddesses began appearing in the archeological record, though they must have been paid homage to
65
long prior. Archeological digs in the areas of the Continental Celts may yet shed light on the rise of the
Triple Goddess.
Now let us take the genetic and archeological evidence and integrate it with surviving mythology in an
attempt to reconstruct ancient Celtic mythology and the related religious ethic that must have been
associated with it. Celtic deities can fall under two categories; general deities and local deities. "General
deities" were known by Celts throughout large regions, and are the gods and goddesses invoked for
protection, healing, luck, and honor. Quite often, these Gods and Goddesses went by different names in
different places and might not have been identical. The "local deities" were the spirits of a particular
feature of the landscape, such as mountains, trees, or rivers, and thus were generally only known by the
locals in the surrounding areas. The religious beliefs of the Celts are of interest in that, between the rise
of the Celts and their twilight during the late Roman period it is possible to observer the evolution from
a purely animistic belief system through the rise of maternal deities to the supremacy of paternal
deities.
Though the names of over 700 deities are known across the entire Celtic world only about 60 of these
are known in more than one region while only 20-30 can be described as truly pan-Celtic gods; known
and worshipped across the entire Celtic world.
The Insular and Continental Celtic Pantheon started with Gods as being spirits and powers of nature:
Cernunnos, the Morrigan, Taranis, Daghda, etc. Interspersed with these major gods are gods and
goddesses of springs, rivers, trees etc., such as Sullis, Danu, Coventina, Borvo etc. These survived into
the Roman Period in many places. The Pantheon had essentially local origins with Neolithic and possibly
Mesolithic proto-Celtic hunter-gatherer societies that migrated from Iberia and southern France into
Western Europe and the British Isles. Similar cultures in the Danube Valley and southern Germany,
Switzerland and northern Italy developed similar pantheons. Similarities and culture and language
suggest close contact, but genetics suggest no large scale mixing of the gene pools.
The stories composing the Book of Invasions probably originated around 4000 B.C. with the introduction
of agriculture. From this period we likely get the origins of the story of Lugh and Tailtiu, the Fomorians
and Fir Bolg and possibly most of the stories of the early Irish kings. A strong component of ancestor
worship was introduced. It is likely that even the sun God Belenus originated at this time. Even the story
of Arthur might have had an origin this ancient.
According to legend, Beli (or Belenus, or Bolgios) was the first corporeal Being, born of the demoness
Manogan. He was the patriarch of two often competing clans: Plant Llyr and Plant Danu. His daughter
Penarddum married Llyr (probably a local chieftain) giving birth to Bran, Branwen, Maannan and
Creiddylad. Arthur, a.k.a. the Summer Lord, is descended from Bran.
Beli’s consort Danu (or Don) gave birth to 10 sons and daughters, including Arianrhudd (later associated
with the moon and therefore the Lady). Brid (or Brigit or Bride) is her granddaughter.
The story of Bran the Blessed likely originated from this period. It indicates the strong element of
ancestor worship we see in the archeological record (mummies and excarnation). Bran was a warrior
66
hero who in battle was wounded in the foot with a poisoned dart and only survived long enough to
instruct his seven surviving companions that his head be struck off and buried in what later became
London. His companions brought the head back to Harlech (in Wales) where it continued to talk and
entertain them for seven years. They then journeyed to the island of Grassholm where the head
entertained them once more and they lived there for eighty years, entirely unaware of the passage of
time until one of their number opened the door facing Cornwall and the spell which was upon them was
broken. Finally, the companions made their way to London where they buried Bran's head, aligning him
so that he faced the continent as a protection against invasion.
It is this legend that directly leads to the myth of the ravens of the Tower of London (if they fly away
then Britain will fall to invasion). The proto-Celts of course, believed the soul resided in the head, so
what Bran’s companions were talking to was his soul.
It is also likely, given the Jasmine clan people reached the British Isles through the Mediterranean route,
that they practiced the custom of killing all the men and children and taking all the women as slaves
when they conquered a people. This would certainly explain the differences in genetic histories between
men and women of the British Isles.
This period ended about 1200 B.C. with the switch from agriculture to herding cattle. Ancestors such as
Brid and Beli were incorporated into festivals days related to herds while older Gods such as Mabon (son
of the earth goddess Modron and the God of Storms Taranis) remained rooted in the agricultural past.
When the Romans invaded Britain and Gaul two thousand years ago, they brought the written word
with them. As they were prone to do, the Romans adapted the pantheon of the conquered, giving them
hyphenated names, essentially an attempt to make the local Gods and Goddesses aspects of their own.
Thus we have names like Sulis-Minerva and Mars Lavictus. Others, such as Epona, were directly
incorporated into the Roman pantheon.
The concepts of Yule and the Lord and Lady were likely of Anglo-Saxon origin; beginning incorporated
into local belief systems during the post-Roman period which we refer to as the Dark Ages. By then the
druids were all but gone except in Ireland and maybe Scotland. Yule is an important holiday both to the
late Celts and to the Odinists of the German cultures.
While names of the Deities have changed and the festivals have evolved, the relationship between Celtic
gods and the Celts themselves changed little, if at all. The Celts did not necessarily worship their Gods;
they honored them. They had no universal Covenant, though they invoked the powers of the Gods and
ancestor Gods, then owed them payment of some kind: usually an offering. The following inscription,
found on a lead tablet in Spain invokes Lugh, who the Romans equated with Mercury:
I beseech the very divine, the divine Maponos Avernatis
by means of the magic tablet:
quicken us, those by the magic of the underworld spirits.
C. Lucios, Floros Nigrinos the invoker,
Aemilios Paterinos, Claudios Legitumos, Caelios Pelignos,
67
Claudios Pelignos, Marcios Victorinos, Asiaticos son of Aedillos.
And it is the destiny of the Victor to which they shall be destined;
the center — when he sows it —
shall be whole;
I right the wrong blindly
thus by means of this tablet I shall see what shall be.
So the Celts, at least by the Roman period, and evidence indicate perhaps even since the beginning,
consulted with their ancestor-Gods, making offerings to them and asking favors in return. Their religious
ethics were normative, most often based in ethical egoism than anything utilitarian. They made
offerings seeking personal gain.
68
CHAPTER 15
SECULAR ETHICS
While it is our intent to examine ethics mainly from a spiritual point of view, we do live in a secular
world. An understanding of that world’s ethics helps us, as spiritual Beings, to cope with the nonspiritual world. We will look at two forms of secular organization: corporations and government.
CORPORATIONS
Corporations, and for that matter, other business entities exist for one reason and one reason only: to
make their owners and shareholders wealthier. The contract between the corporation/business and the
owner/shareholder is based on the ethical egoism of the shareholder. The shareholder wants the
business/corporation to do him the greatest good.
Where the modern model fails is that the owner/shareholder has no voice, especially in the corporate
model, of controlling the actions and therefore influencing the ethics of the corporate managers. In an
ideal world, the corporate managers would behave in a manner driven by a combination of utilitarian
and ethical egoism (i.e. doing what is best for the shareholder while still keeping in mind the greatest
good or least harm), that is often not the case. Too often corporate management reverts to
consequentialism: the ends justify the means. Even worse is when they resort to nihilism: no
consideration of ethics or the harm they may be doing at all.
Often we call this corporate greed. Often it is. Sometimes though, managers are merely practicing selfpreservation. For example in the financial crisis, we had several greedy managers manipulating the
markets. Unfortunately we also had a government exacerbating the situation: keep up with Freddie and
Fannie or go under. The results are often disastrous.
GOVERNMENT
The government exists for one reason and one reason only: to protect the greatest good of its own
people (or itself). The greatest good of people not under the government control is of substantially less
importance. It is ethical egoism, hopefully at its best. When one government allies with another, it is a
matter of a contract, usually temporary, that works to the benefit of both parties. When governments
try to ally for the greatest good of all, it has never worked, because the primary ethical codes of the
individual governments involved are and will always be ethical egoism.
The ethics of individual governments often are dependent on the type of government and who is in
charge. If it is a government controlled by a single man or a committee, the relationship between the
government and the people is duty-based. The people obey. In the best of situations, the governing
body is driven by doing the greatest good and least harm to the people. That is, it is following a code of
ethical egoism. However, history is littered with less stellar examples from Caligula to Bashar al-Assad.
Too often dictators are nihilists or consequentialists.
69
One could argue a republican form of government is different. Here the people have contract with the
government and a duty to obey the laws of elected officials. The government as a whole should practice
ethical egoism on behalf of the people. The weakness of the republican model is that the majority of the
people can enforce duties on the minority for the benefit of the majority. This type of ethical egoism
generally results in more restrictive duty-based ethical codes enforced on the people as a whole.
Marxism is a recent form of government that has never been completely implemented in any
government body. The original thesis of Marxism can be found in only two places. The first is a very
large, somewhat incomprehensible and boring economic treatise. The second, written by Engels, is
“Marx’s Concept of Man.” This treatise is much shorter and presents political tools for enforcing the
economic agenda. The basis of Marxism can be summarized in the phrase “each contributes according
to his ability and takes according to his need.” The objective was to free people from the need for a
paycheck so they could pursue their own motivations and dreams.
The problem was quickly recognized by both Marx and Engels: when freed of a contractual or duty
based ethic, people resorted to ethical egoism, consequentialism or nihilism. It was recognized that in
order to attain the vision of Marx, a government that enforced duty-based ethics on the populace was
required. Thus a system of socialism was envisioned as an intermediate step in order to “educate” the
people to the benefits of what would amount to an altruistic ethical system. Basically, a duty-based
system had to be installed in order to force the population into altruism. They miscalculated the real
nature of man and the strong instincts for self-preservation and survival of the fittest. They also
miscalculated the ethics of the type of people who would be attracted to leading a government that
would force a duty-based applied ethic on the population. The people who did emerge were
consequentialists.
The soft socialism of the Western world has similar ethical issues. In order to force more altruistic
behavior of its citizens, governments have no choice but to create and enforce a duty-based applied
ethical system.
So what is the answer? The main thesis of this class is that ethics are personal. One cannot force a
nihilist to have ethics, or an ethical egoist to become altruistic. It is a personal choice. Governments
behave the same way. The best we can hope for is one that practices a form of ethical egoism on berhalf
of its people.
70
CHAPTER 16
PUTTING YOUR ETHICS TO WORK
This entire theory means nothing if you don’t apply it. Start with small decisions. Examine them in light
of the ethical systems above, and then evaluate how your ethics are doing. Keep what works; change
what doesn’t and then start applying your ethics to bigger decisions. Your ethics will grow as you grow.
Finally, get to know yourself better. How can you determine what values are right for you if you don’t
know yourself? You can listen to your inner voice, but far better is to take the second course in this
discipline. See you then!
CONGRATULATIONS! You have now finished SoNGS Ethics 101 class!