WICCAN ETHICS AND THE WICCAN REDE
By: David Piper, Sat 21 May 94 12:16
Part I: What Sayeth The Rede?
The "archaically worded" construction "An it harm none, do what ye will,"
rendered into modern English is literally, "if it doesn't harm anyone, do what you
want."
Many modern Wiccans "reverse" the construction, however, taking the first part
and putting it after the second to read: "Do what ye will an it harm none," or in
modern English "Do what you want if it doesn't harm anyone."
Many people give the word "an" or "if" a value of "so long as" �?which is
acceptable substitution, because it doesn't alter the meaning of the Rede itself.
However they then proceed to read "so long as" as "only if," and that is
*completely different*, because the Rede has ceased to be a "wise counsel"
[anyone checked the meaning of "rede" in the dictionary lately?] and become an
injunction: prohibitive commandment, rather than permissive advice. In other
words, the original archaic construction actually says "if it is not going to hurt
anyone, it is ok to do" - this is *not* the same as "if it hurts anyone it is *not* ok to
do."
What is the significance of the change? A larger one than you might see, at first
glance.
The "actual construction Rede," or AC Rede, says it is ok to do something that
won't harm anyone, but it *does not say anything* about those things which do
cause harm, except to set an ethical standard of harmlessness as the criteria to
judge by.
The "modern reconstruction Rede" or MR Rede, explicitly says that any and all
actions that cause harm are forbidden.
The two constructions do *not* mean the same thing at all. And it should be
obvious that this has implications on our thinking, and discussions of the
possibility of "obeying" the Rede.
Most of you will have heard or read, as I have, people saying the Rede is
something to strive to live by, even though mundane reality makes it very difficult,
if not impossible, to do so to the letter. *This is only true of the MR Rede, not the
AC Rede!* As examples, they cite situations such as self-defense; *this violates
the MR Rede*. Period. But it does *not* violate the AC Rede. Period.
Earlier, I stated that the AC Rede does not rule on actions that do cause harm -
and this is true. It only rules on those actions which do not, by saying that they
are acceptable. This is relevant to "victimless crimes" for example - civil "crimes"
may in fact be "ethical," by the judgment of the AC Rede.
What the AC Rede *does* do, in terms of actions that cause harm, is state an
ethical value by which an individual must judge the results of her/his actions
before acting. In other words, by stating that a harmless action is ethical, the AC
Rede sets harmless-ness as the criteria for evaluation. Acting to prevent greater
harm - but in the process causing lesser harm - may then be ethical, if there is no
harmless, or more harmless, method of preventing that greater harm - because
*not* acting to prevent harm is to *cause* it, by an act of *omission* rather than
*commission*.
In short the difference between the AC Rede, and the MR Rede, is that the AC
Rede is a perfectly-obeyable ethical standard, but the MR Rede is not, as so
many people have pointed out. Do we take as our ethical standard a "counsel"
which *can* be obeyed, or one which *necessitates rationalizing in some
instances*? Which is truer to the Wicca, and to the *real* Rede?
"rede: n. [Middle English rede < Old English raed < base of raedan, to interpret]
[archaic] 1. counsel; advice 2. a plan; scheme 3. a story; tale 4. an
interpretation" (from Webster's New World Dictionary)
Part II: "Do good, an it be safe..." (from the Ordains)
The MR Rede is the most common interpretation in Wicca today; so much so,
that not only do many Wiccans not realize there's a difference in the two
constructions, but they *deny* it when it is pointed out to them, holding firmly to
the MR Rede as what the original has always meant.
At first the change of language was only an attempt to bring the language up
from archaic, to modern English; but in doing so - especially with the public
relations campaign, to convince people that Wiccans are "not black magick/not
devil worship/not evil nasty curse-casters" the "harmlessness" aspect of the
Rede was stressed, over the personal responsibility aspect. And in essence
Wiccans became the victims of their own PR campaign.
An additional result is the injunction that one may never work magick for others,
even to heal, without their knowledge and consent. Of course, we are allowed by
this injunction to ask "Can I pray for you?" as a means of obtaining the consent.
From "a love spell aimed at one particular person is unethical because it violates
their will only to serve our lust" we've 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 the Gods will judge them ill,
for attempting to heal someone?
What of the case of an unconscious accident victim and family unavailable to ask
- are we forbidden to work? No, of course we're not �?but we *do* have to accept
the karmic consequences of such acts. Do you really think that a neurotic who
uses an illness as a crutch wouldn't be better healed of that neurosis as well as
the illness? Of course that may call up some karma if the person isn't strong
enough to give up that crutch yet. Once again the real criteria is *personal
responsibility* and consideration of the consequences of one's actions *before*
one acts rather than the "thou shalt not" prohibitive commandment.
There is however another reason for the "prohibitive form" of these redes - one
which has some validity. The teacher bears a karmic responsibility for the
student. There was a group whose teaching was, "No magick may be done for
another, even to heal, with-out their consent; any exceptions may be decided
only by the High Priestess and the High Priest." The point of this is that a student
is not yet experienced enough, not yet wise enough (since wisdom is the harvest
we reap of our experience and knowledge), to have that kind of decision, and the
resulting karmic burden, left to rest fully upon her/his shoulders - hence, some
teachers and some Trads do not allow neophytes to have responsibility for that
kind of decision-making.
It is far better, however, to teach a student the essential importance of personal
responsibility, the need to look ahead for possible consequences before they act,
than to lay "thou shalt not's" upon them despite Wicca's insistence that we have
none.
I received a comment about the last sentence in part I, paragraph 3, that said
"Ack! Welcome to the One Wiccan Commandment! Any 'thou shalt nots' lurking
around?" Food for thought, my fellow Wiccans! Food for thought!
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First 