BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Magic Ethics

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Quantum
10:38 / 26.04.07
XK, would you take the bottle away from an alcoholic? I would. Sometimes people need a helping hand, even if that hand smacks them round the head.
 
 
Ticker
13:40 / 26.04.07
I hear you but I'm looking at it in terms of not only taking the bottle away but really addressing why the person is using alcohol in the first place. Taking the bottle away is not enough because when you go use the bathroom or the phone they'll sneak one out of the umbrella stand.

I've asked for third party confirmation and all indications are looking like the health issue specificly is sort of set in motion. It's the core injury I need to focus on so the person can at least enjoy what life they have left and not drag into the next life quite as poor off.
 
 
Quantum
13:24 / 27.04.07
I really meant to illustrate that I'm not seeing your dilemma too clearly, I think if you're willing to intervene then you're doing them a favour. I don't think it's unethical, and I think you've examined your own motives carefully enough that you can be fairly sure you're doing the right thing. Nuff respect to you for having the grit to do it, good luck, I hope it works out and he joins in with the healing.
 
 
Ticker
13:58 / 27.04.07
ah, ok.

Well to paraphrase an offboard source sometimes it really isn't any of your bidness/concern because that's what free will is about. Is the motive to intervene actually derived from the desire to stop the fallout in your own life rather than to honor the choices of the other person, for good or for ill? Sort of a prime directive to respect individual choice above all else.

Which honestly I think is my native thinking but I've gotten permission from the person in question to wade on in so it's resolved now. Without that permission, however, I would not take action.
 
 
EmberLeo
18:32 / 27.04.07
Is the motive to intervene actually derived from the desire to stop the fallout in your own life rather than to honor the choices of the other person, for good or for ill?

Mrf. If the other person is making choices that are creating fallout in your life, I don't think it's all about honoring their choices anymore - they aren't honoring your space with their choices. Their right to swing a punch ends at your nose too.

--Ember--
 
 
Ticker
18:54 / 27.04.07
Shoving the other person rather than stepping out of the way takes more energy.

One is always entitled to act for one's self. This includes removal from the scene or learning how to process what's coming in differently.

As magic users we have to always consider altering our own reality before altering another person's as the solution to a conflict.
 
 
EmberLeo
01:57 / 28.04.07
True.

Mm... I guess it's variable, but the variations that occur to me are not directly relevant to your situation, I think.

--Ember--
 
 
grant
20:32 / 04.10.07
Perhaps some discussion of ritual thievery could go here.
 
 
Haloquin
16:07 / 05.10.07
In response to the statement that a magician should not consider themselves to be above the law Bob Cleaver said this; it was just the (quoted) idea that the magician should never break the law which stuck in my throat, a little.

I'm curious as to how close the ideas of 'not considering oneself above the law' and 'not breaking the law, ever' are. I certainly don't consider them to be entirely synonomous.

Not breaking an unjust law may be considered to be an immoral act... but I'm not thinking about that at the minute; what I'm thinking about is whether breaking a law is the same as considering yourself to be above it.

I could break a law, say steal something, while being well aware that by doing so I would be, whether fairly or not, incurring the reaction of the lawenforcers, unless I get caught. I haven't necessarily considered myself above the law they enforce, just that I'm breaking it.

Knowing that you are within the law and choosing to break it anyway I would consider to be legally transgressive. Believing oneself to be above the law I think implies a form of arrogance, if you are within a society you are under its laws. You may disagree, break or ignore them, but surely you recognise that they are part of the society you are a part of and therefore you could not be 'above' them?
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
18:27 / 05.10.07
what are laws, in the end? I guess whether it has something to do with magic or not, if I choose to break a law, it's because I consider it important enough to be worth the risk.

is there anything special about practicing magic that would make it more or less okay to break the law? I guess I could see that there might be. for some people it's not just sigils and wanking, it's your religion. if you held strong religious beliefs that required you to perform illegal acts, wouldn't you do it? I think I would.

morals I would consider different than laws. laws are decided by politicians and only vaguely based on what the community actually wants. I'm not sure to what extent my own morals have been created by the various large and small communities I've participated in over the years, or to what extent they are dictated by my religious beliefs. it would seem strange to me to violate my own moral code in the name of magic, since my belief system would be intricately bound up with my moral code.

I can't remember the last time I stole anything. I think it would have been when I was about twelve and thought it was supposed to be cool. I didn't enjoy it. if there was any kind of a rush there, it was overshadowed by guilt or the fear of getting caught.

I don't think I would ever steal again unless I was in some strange circumstance, like starving to death. I'm far from rich but I have no excuse for stealing. it seems lazy to me.

going along more with the original content of this thread, ie using magic to naughty ends - I don't think I could if I wanted to, literally. the people I work with and the purpose of my working with them is all bound up in Me-ness, working me along this path I'm on, teaching me stuff. I think that even if I cobbled together some kind of spell to convince someone to fall in love with me, or a curse, or whatever, it just wouldn't even do anything, there'd be no oomph in it, no cooperation by any of the forces I deal with, and really no interest in trying.

I certainly believe that "black" magic exists, that some traditions include things like curses or love hexing or whatever. I don't believe that you have to be a good or selfless person at heart to be able to effect magical change or even to be searching for some kind of true knowledge. but I don't think that stuff has anything to do with my "path".

also, as far as discussing things here on barbelith...I know I would personally feel extremely uncomfortable reading any kind of discussion about using magic to seduce people or force your intentions upon them. if others feel that discussions of rituals involving theft are similarly distasteful and we shouldn't be appearing to condone those activities by talking about their relative effectiveness, I'd be fine with that. I have little or no experience with such things anyway.
 
 
Elduderino
13:22 / 11.10.07
Heres a lil' old checklist some may find relevant

The question should be: during your magikal practice at one stage or another, how many can you have said to cross off or better yet... perpetrate on a regular basis?
 
 
Quantum
14:53 / 11.10.07
laws are decided by politicians and only vaguely based on what the community actually wants

...and put into practice by lawyers and judges, even more distant from what the community wants. I'm not sure if a community can be said to want something as a consensus, there will always be people who disagree with a law (often a majority of people).
 
 
Quantum
14:57 / 11.10.07
offtopic-
1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

Evil Scientist, we need to talk... only number 12 is saving you from the madhouse...
 
 
Elduderino
10:08 / 12.10.07
:P

But in all seriousness, I doubt there can even be such a thing as ethical magic especially when the majority of its practice (generalism) calls for disregarding of "social constructions" such as morals and ethics.

Try to describe conversation with the holy guardian angel to a psychologist for example and he will deem you delusionally self referential and reccomend treatment in an asylum as the ETHICAL thing to do.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:37 / 12.10.07
That's rubbish though. So what if you end up disregarding social conventions? There's a strong social convention that says it's okay for me to use homophobic slurs and make jokes about gays--I'm perfectly happy to ignore that one, as it's hardly ethical. There are people who go out and break rules for the sake of breaking them, without regard to the origin and nature of the rule (are we talking "don't put your elbows on the table," "don't say 'fuck'," "don't smoke pot" or "don't mug grannies"?) or the consequences of breaking it. I think that's a bit sad myself. I would hope that such a person got a better grip on things soon (like, before the age at which one can be tried as an adult.)

A magician should strive to be ethical. Sure, she might find herself breaking a few rules, but sometimes that is the ethical thing to do. Why? Because this world is fucked up. It's already lousy with selfish arseholes and bullying gimme-pigs. At its worst it's a pit of misery and anguish. Why the fuck would anyone want to add to that?

I'm not talking about all this simplistic three-fold law, harm it none bollocks*, I'm talking about the assumption of power and the responsibility that goes with it; the magician's own integrity and sense of justice. So no, it's not okay to use magic to get what you want regardless of the wellbeing of others. It's not okay to use magic to inflict wanton cruelty, to harrass, to manipulate others for your own enjoyment. There are uses of magic which harm and uses which heal, and it's up to the magician to sort them out and do the right thing.

*The oversimplified fluff version thereof, I mean. I don't wish to denigrate those for whom this is a bare-bones expression of a more complex philosophy
 
 
Quantum
10:56 / 12.10.07
I doubt there can even be such a thing as ethical magic

What does that mean? How is the ethics of magic any different from the ethics of plumbing or the ethics of gardening? I sort of see what you mean, but ethics override laws, even hardcore anarchists have ethical rules they follow.
 
 
Papess
11:21 / 12.10.07
I'm curious as to how close the ideas of 'not considering oneself above the law' and 'not breaking the law, ever' are. I certainly don't consider them to be entirely synonomous.

Thank you for pointing that out, Haloquin. Magick at the very least, should involve awareness. If theft, drugs, or prostitution are necessary to your magickal/spiritual process, fine. BUt to be flippant or ignorant of what that means, and how that affects your immediate environment or circumstances, well that is just stupid. I make no apology for that statement, either. Magick and stupidity are like oil and water.
 
 
Elduderino
12:10 / 12.10.07
Hmm perhaps I was kinda unclear, I guess I'm talking Ethical as in an ethical code ie selfless/moral philosophy, as opposed to ethics as general concept/argument.

The angle I was approaching it from was more of a: "no such thing as a selfless act" as a foundation of which magickal practice orginates and leading from there onto moral choice / rules of law / social construction.

that any clearer or am i just getting more confused?
 
 
Elduderino
12:53 / 12.10.07
I'm worried that this could rot the thread into a discussion of wether or not altruism exists and application of white/grey/black magick (if there even really is a distinction) which is not my immediate intention (tho I am intrested in that discussion possibly for another thread?)-

my intention was to provoke more food for thought as to:

Specifically the possible danger of any kind of practice where the intent is to bring about change to people outside of their own knowledge/will. And most importantly how that also affects your own mentality/will (see the list I linked above).
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
13:38 / 12.10.07
"no such thing as a selfless act" as a foundation of which magickal practice orginates

wha?

whose magical practice? not mine, I don't think. maybe I'm being dense.

the possible danger of any kind of practice where the intent is to bring about change to people outside of their own knowledge/will.

I would agree that this would be dangerous.

is such a practice what magic is? some, sure. all?

my practice is, almost 100%, about bringing change to myself. the effects on others are almost side effects (like, if I'm less of an asshole, they benefit. if I come to a greater understanding of the universe - or, anyway, hopefully, an interesting new view of it - then I share it with some people. etc.)

maybe this is more of the "mystic" than "magician" path.

hmm, I see what you're saying though, maybe. if I work some spell to get myself a seat on the next bus, what just happened? did I "make" someone get off earlier than they might have? if I manipulate people, even for their own (as I perceive it) benefit, and they don't know I'm doing it*, isn't that very dodgy? this could be the very explicit kind of thing that XK was talking about earlier, or something more weird and vague, maybe even as innocent as lighting a candle on New Year's and meditating for World Peace, as my stepmother does. this seems like a grand end, but what, really, is she doing? manipulating people to an (what she sees as good) end?

I'd find it hard to argue against lighting candles for world peace, but there is a part of me that says it's not my (her) place to make decisions for other people. hmm.

I think I would mitigate this two ways:

1) She's not forcing people to be peaceful, as in invading their countries and enforcing peace totalitarian style. the effects of one person lighting a candle are small. more like having a demonstration or passing out flyers in an attempt to influence people a bit - which I have no problem with.

2) there's a big philosophical discussion to be had here about free will. I would argue that it would be impossible for her to force people to become peaceful unless they really wanted it, at some level, and were being non-peaceful for reasons involving fear or not listening to themselves, etc. I don't believe in the perceived dualism between my Free Will and God (or whoever)'s plan. My Will, which I work as a magician, is in some way God's Will, which is in turn the Will of the people I'm theoretically messing with. this is probably getting too specific to my personal beliefs/system though.

*obviously, giving someone a blessing when they're standing there and can see I'm doing it and, in fact, have asked me to do it, seems pretty okay.
 
 
EvskiG
14:56 / 12.10.07
I doubt there can even be such a thing as ethical magic especially when the majority of its practice (generalism) calls for disregarding of "social constructions" such as morals and ethics.

I doubt the majority of magical practice calls for disregarding morals or ethics as mere "social constructions." Some magical theory and practice may encourage the practitioner to try to see conventional moral and ethical practices with fresh eyes, and to determine if those practices have inherent merit or are merely social conventions, but that doesn't mean that magic encourages people to disregard or break moral or ethical rules per se.

Try to describe conversation with the holy guardian angel to a psychologist for example and he will deem you delusionally self referential and reccomend treatment in an asylum as the ETHICAL thing to do.

Don't know about that, either. You easily could say that the attempt to attain knowledge and conversation of one's guardian angel is an attempt to use active imagination to gain a better awareness of, and to try to integrate, otherwise unconscious or semi-conscious mental processes and parts of the mind. A bit flaky and Jungian, maybe, but not insane.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:12 / 12.10.07
I do know about that, having been under psychiatric supervision for many years as a young adult. I have discussed various talking-to-headvoice type experiences with a variety of mental health professionals both within the context of a clinical setting and informally, as between friends. Guess what? Alarms didn't sound, lights didn't flash, guys in Kevlar vests didn't rappel down the walls and chase me around with butterfly nets. I only got inpatient care when I was too fucked up to tell you my DOB, and at that time I was actively trying to get inpatient care.

Because, contrary to paranoid antipsychiatric belief, you don't get locked up just for talking to the headvoices. You get placed under psychiatric care only if you have a whole raft of other symptoms, including a serious inability to function in your day-to-day life. Yeah, we can all go through the DSM book and spook ourselves with how close some of our day-to-day experiences are to a diagnosis of some mental health issue or another, but the fact is that if you are taking reasonably good care of yourself and are not in undue distress as a result of your beliefs and practices, no shrink worth a damn is going to diagnose you with anything.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:24 / 12.10.07
The reason I get so hot under the collar about this is that there's a huge potential for someone who really does need some kind of medical intervention buying into all this such that they avoid talking to healthcare professionals, counsellors or even friends about certain experiences on the grounds that "they'll think I'm crazy and I'll get locked up."
 
 
Elduderino
15:52 / 12.10.07
"no such thing as a selfless act" as a foundation of which magickal practice orginates”

you will have to forgive me for my sweeping generalisations, but breaking it down should give further topics of discourse, I did warn earlier that this could slide off topic but I’m willing to go with it and see where we end up

The problem is a logical trap around the philosophical argument of altruism and its existence, it can be argued from both sides that 1) selfless acts can exist and 2) there is no such thing as a truly selfless act.

Personally I side on the camp of humans are inherently selfish and all motivation and following actions follow that ideal. If I use your statement as an example:

“my practice is, almost 100%, about bringing change to myself. the effects on others are almost side effects”

One could argue that is a selfish viewpoint, since your own motivations to bring change to yourself for your own benefit. Altruistic reasons could then be argued against that by such as you state:

“if I'm less of an asshole, they benefit. if I come to a greater understanding of the universe - or, anyway, hopefully, an interesting new view of it - then I share it with some people”

Which could then be refuted that it’s a selfish reason to make your perceived appearance to others seem more likeable. Etc.

This is (as far as I know) an inherent problem with altruism’s existence - it’s a circular argument.

I’d like to state the case for Sigilisation as an example for debate, I would contend that the very practice itself could be seen as selfish since it is the implantation of ones desire onto the subconscious in order for it to affect a result. While the result could be used for “selfless” ends, is not the very mechanism of its action inherently selfish?

Would that then beckon in further philosophical debate as to if the ends justifies the means in magickal practice (or otherwise)?

As to the candle for world peace conundrum, another point: with reference to her candle “ritual” are taking Crowley’s belief that every intention is a magickal act, rather than a specific gnosis-and-all ritual that she is carrying out?

Surely there is a further reaching dilemma implicated for us if we are talking Crowley since we would have to weigh up ALL peoples intentions to attempt control over people ethical or otherwise – for example what about discussions such as we are having right here on this thread – Am I infact being unethical by my actions to persuade people of my argument (and therefore change their minds possibly against their will?)!
 
 
EvskiG
16:15 / 12.10.07
I don't see the huge dilemma here.

Personally, I strongly believe Crowley's maxim that every intentional act is a magical act. And, at least in theory, I try to be reasonably ethical in all of my actions, whether it's preparing a sigil or talking to a client at work or posting on Barbelith. Sometimes I succeed. Sometimes I fail. Sometimes I simply don't consider the ethics of a situation until after the fact, if at all.

But I don't see any reason for moral paralysis. ("Will my sigil for rain deprive a local farmer of the water he needs? Better check the I Ching. Better obsess about the matter.") Just try to make a reasonable effort to act according to your own code of ethics, then move on.

As per this story:

"Once upon a time there were two monks who were traveling through the countryside during the rainy season.

Rounding a bend in the path, they found a muddy stream blocking their way. Beside it stood a lovely woman dressed in white robes.

'Here,' said one of the monks to the woman. 'Let me carry you across the water.' And he picked her up and carried her across. Setting her down on the further bank, he went along in silence with his fellow monk to the abbey on the hill.

Later that evening the other monk said suddenly, 'I think you made an error, picking up that woman back on our journey today. You know we are not supposed to have anything to do with women, and you held one close to you! You should not have done that.'

'How strange,' remarked the other, 'I carried her only across the water. You are carrying her still.'"
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
16:16 / 12.10.07
while I agree that there can be a lot of debate about the existence of altruism, I'm not sure why we need to. my understanding of our reason for discussing "magical ethics" is not to determine whether or not such and such a spell is selfish or selfless along some kind of black/white magic lines, but just talking about using magic to achieve ends which are unethical (using spells to seduce a girlfriend) - or about practicing magic which is itself unethical but which might lead to an ethical end (influencing people to make the world a better place).

I would define my practice as almost entirely Selfish. I am not trying to promote world peace or bring down the system or find people's lost cats. I don't think that's the same thing as Unethical.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
16:17 / 12.10.07
that was a reply to Elduderino, not Ev.
 
 
Elduderino
18:10 / 12.10.07
“I doubt the majority of magical practice calls for disregarding morals or ethics as mere "social constructions." Some magical theory and practice may encourage the practitioner to try to see conventional moral and ethical practices with fresh eyes, and to determine if those practices have inherent merit or are merely social conventions, but that doesn't mean that magic encourages people to disregard or break moral or ethical rules per se.”

Although there are a considerable number of white magick books out there for the populace to read (some good some bad) there are an equal number of black magick/lefthand path books (some good some bad)to go with them, same goes for internet sites (again some good some bad). I’m fairly certain that the readership of both would claim legitimacy over the other.

So although at 2nd glance I cant call it all magickal practice ( I did forwarn that I was using a generalism) I would contest that you cant say the majority of magickal practice doesn’t encourage people to disregard or break moral/ethical rules and certainly an awareness of the uses of doing so at one point or another in magickal practice IS encouraged and certainly in my opinion all of the good ones certainly encourage you to break out of your regular (which could be construed as containing ethical/moral)thinking atleast once if not on a regular basis.

“You easily could say that the attempt to attain knowledge and conversation of one's guardian angel is an attempt to use active imagination”

I would have to draw a difference between conversation with the holy guardian angel and an active imagination, in that active imagination wont get you removed from work, or sent to a psychiatrist.

“Because, contrary to paranoid antipsychiatric belief, you don't get locked up just for talking to the headvoices. You get placed under psychiatric care only if you have a whole raft of other symptoms, including a serious inability to function in your day-to-day life.”

If the king refuses food, he will be restrained. If he claims to have no appetite, he will be restrained. If he swears and indulges in meaningless discourse... he will be restrained. If he throws off his bedclothes, tears away his bandages, scratches at his sores, and dosn't strive every day towards his own recovery, then he must be restrained.

“The reason I get so hot under the collar about this is that there's a huge potential for someone who really does need some kind of medical intervention buying into all this such that they avoid talking to healthcare professionals, counsellors or even friends about certain experiences on the grounds that "they'll think I'm crazy and I'll get locked up."

I totally agree with this statement. And don't forget kids! remember to banish with laughter often


“But I don't see any reason for moral paralysis. ("Will my sigil for rain deprive a local farmer of the water he needs?" Better check the I Ching. Better obsess about the matter.") Just try to make a reasonable effort to act according to your own code of ethics, then move on.”

So where does that leave:

“practicing magic which is itself unethical but which might lead to an ethical end (influencing people to make the world a better place).”

And ye olde proverb: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:30 / 12.10.07
If the king refuses food, he will be restrained. If he claims to have no appetite, he will be restrained. If he swears and indulges in meaningless discourse... he will be restrained. If he throws off his bedclothes, tears away his bandages, scratches at his sores, and dosn't strive every day towards his own recovery, then he must be restrained.

Please explain to me what in the name of KEG this has to do with the state of modern psychiatric care. There are a lot of good, well-reasoned critiques highlighting genuine flaws in the system(s) as they exist today. Quotes from the Madness of King George do not fall into this category and do absolutely nothing to move the discussion along.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
20:22 / 12.10.07
So although at 2nd glance I cant call it all magickal practice ( I did forwarn that I was using a generalism) I would contest that you cant say the majority of magickal practice doesn’t encourage people to disregard or break moral/ethical rules and certainly an awareness of the uses of doing so at one point or another in magickal practice IS encouraged and certainly in my opinion all of the good ones certainly encourage you to break out of your regular (which could be construed as containing ethical/moral)thinking atleast once if not on a regular basis.

wow, that was one sentence?

I guess that depends on what we're defining as "magical practice". like if we're including most religious-based magic, then probably not. and personally I don't see a heck of a lot of difference between going to a cathedral to pray to your patron saint about finding your credit card and practicing magic.

then again, apparently what is or is not a magical practice is to be determined by examining the bookshelves at some store and seeing how many of what they carry.

I'm not completely oblivious to the point you're making (I think), but I definitely feel that "breaking out of your regular thinking" can and should mean a lot of other healthy things, not just unethical behavior. If your goal is opening up your mind and seeing the universe in a new way or whatever, I'd hope you could come up with more ideas than just being an asshole to people.

So where does that leave:

“practicing magic which is itself unethical but which might lead to an ethical end (influencing people to make the world a better place).”

I feel in my post I quickly argued myself out of this corner (as far as I was concerned) by pointing out that I wouldn't consider the equivalent, non-magical methods of influence (flyers, etc) to be unethical.

really, for me at least, the question isn't that hard - if it would be unethical to do the same thing (or some equivalent) without magic, then it's unethical to do it with magic. there may be times when a person feels that unethical behavior is necessary to achieve some end. this, too, would apply to non-magic as well as to magic.

what "unethical" means is, of course, up to you and/or your community.
 
 
EvskiG
20:27 / 12.10.07
Although there are a considerable number of white magick books out there for the populace to read (some good some bad) there are an equal number of black magick/lefthand path books (some good some bad)to go with them, same goes for internet sites (again some good some bad). I’m fairly certain that the readership of both would claim legitimacy over the other.

People seem to have strong differences of opinion about what constitutes black magic, white magic, left-hand path magic, and right-hand path magic. I'm not sure that the first two can be distinguished meaningfully. I don't think that the first two are synonymous with the second two. And I don't know that labeling any given act as one or the other is helpful.

If you take seriously Crowley's suggestion that every intentional act is a magical act, does that mean that every intentional act you take during the day should be interpreted as black or white magic? (I chose eggs for breakfast -- is that black or white?) And if not, why should stereotypically magical actions (divination, a healing ritual, casting a sigil) be scrutinized in a different way from other intentional actions?
 
 
EvskiG
20:31 / 12.10.07
A bit of slippage.

Have to agree with the Red King of Strong Iron Pants.
 
 
Elduderino
08:16 / 15.10.07
And if not, why should stereotypically magical actions (divination, a healing ritual, casting a sigil) be scrutinized in a different way from other intentional actions?

You hit the nail on the head right there


"what "unethical" means is, of course, up to you and/or your community."

Between these 2 responses I'd be inclined to say that we have the best answer for the thread
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:12 / 15.10.07
Evil Scientist, we need to talk... only number 12 is saving you from the madhouse...

Ahh, I'm a friendly one though. Like Dexter, only not so toned.

Just be glad I don't practise magic.

Whilst some it appears that there are some schools of magical thinking that would suggest that it is okay to "push the limits" of legality doesn't the magician have some responsibility to the society that they live in? It seems to me that breaking the law in pursuit of a magical goal would be the same, ethically, as someone doing something similar for religious reasons. Setting the belief above the law.

The laws in the UK (for instance) are not designed with magical practises in mind certainly. But the flexibility is there to have allowances made within the system to make legally "dodgy" acts permissable on the grounds that they are part of a magician's faith system.

That's not to say everything would be allowable. Theft and property damage are unlikely to be included. Neither are any act which hurt (within the law's understanding of "hurt") others.

Someone stealing, for instance, an item because they felt it had magical resonance shows a total lack of respect for the belief system of the objects owner who may well not feel the same way about stealing as the person taking the item. (In my view of course).
 
 
Elduderino
13:03 / 15.10.07
Approaching it from the Legal angle, say laying a curse against a person compared to simply harboring ill-will towards someone. In the UK atleast, wouldnt the Law only step in if the ill-will/curse involved a verbal/physical attack on the aggressors part? I havent studied law in a while but im pretty sure it makes the distinction between mens rea and actus reus?
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply