Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

[sobrique]

Chap named Alistair Crowley is expounded the philosophy of "do what you will shall be the whole of the law". He's widely recognised as being one of the key figures in witchcraft and magic in occult texts.

The wiccans adopted this, and added "An' it harm none...".

And I've heard it again more recently:
"The only rules that really matter are these: What a man can do and what a man can't do."

(Incidentally, that was Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Carribean)

One of my current favourite authors (Ken Mcleod) actually expanded on this a little, in one of his books. It seemed to make an odd kind of sense.

You see, it's not "do what thou wilt" so much as "do what you can". And it's not as anarchic as it sounds. In life, humans work together in groups, social and professional. And it's got nothing to do with rules imposed upon them, it's because it's the most effective way of doing things.

They major point would seem to be that there are no absolutes. There's just a general consensus about right and wrong. It is _that_ from which we derive our code of laws. One voice saying what they think, and a lot more going 'yeah, that sounds reasonable. I don't like all of it, but in general I think it'll be better than the alternative'.

And such is the way of all things. If you want to go and kill someone, you can. Nothing will stop you, except the power of those who think that doing so is wrong.

Those who think this, are in the majority, so they have a lot of ability to prevent you from doing so. And have an organised force to prevent/punish, known as the police. The majority think that murder is wrong, and have the power to do something about it.

The area becomes grey around things like taking drugs. Some think it's right, others think it's wrong. But for a selection of drugs, it's illegal. There's still a large number of people who take drugs, because they _can_. The consequences of their action may be that they become addicted or ill. The consensus group that believes that taking drugs is a bad thing may try and impose their will upon them, through the tool of the police force.

At the end of the day, there's nothing to stop _you_ from organising, and trying to impose your own rules. Just don't think that morality comes into it at all - it'll carry as far as the sound of your voice. It may be supported by others, who can add their power to yours. A team effort, bringing greater power, and weight behind the opinion.

Waiting for someone else, because "it's not my job, it's not my problem" is an option. To choose to do nothing is none the less a choice. But in doing so, you are forfeiting your power over it. And someone else might come along and do what they can.

This is how our society works. If you have the power (be it financial, political, military) to emphasise your opinion, then you have the power to change the world. That's why we have political parties. That's why we have pressure groups. That's why we have activists. That's why we have terrorists.

If you truly believe in something, then all you have to to is reach out and make it happen.

Do what you can.


(Comments appreciated and solicited. Tell me what you think)

Comments

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Ah, no. That's the distinction.

There is no overriding imperative to avoid harming others, apart from the one you impose.

Harm others, or not as you believe but don't assume that because you feel that way, there is some invisible assertion that means other people must or should see the same way.

If you were to assume that I didn't consider assaulting someone wrong then there would be nothing to stop me walking up to you, and trying to hurt you. Except for a) the fact that you would defend yourself, b) your friends might consider this 'wrong' and intervene, c) the police also consider this wrong and would either intervene, or deliver retribution.

In all the above cases, the moral angle is irrelevant. I see it one way, you see it the other, and it's a question of 'power' as to who gets it the way they want.

There's enough of a consensus that hurting others (grevious bodily harm, murder etc.) is bad, and there's enough people with the power and inclination to try and prevent it.

There's no absolute in the concept of harm. In some cases, leaving someone alone is harmful. In others, it's the opposite. Who's to decide? Well everyone of course. If I think that you smacking your child is 'harmful' then it is my obligation to attempt to stop it. If you belive that smacking a naughty child is important, then it's _your_ obligation to counter the metaphorical battle.

One has the ability to stop others from causing harm, in accordance with their personal power and belief. A strong consensus, a well reasoned argument creates a team of people working together towards the same end, and generally the team with the most power will win.

But it requires that one act rather than observe.

(reposted as a redraft, because the previous didn't say what I meant it to.)

[malal.livejournal.com]

Ahhh, but you're talking about what the reality *is* not what it should be.

The way I see it, that line of thinking ends up in Anarchistic philosophy, which has the presumption that people are intrinsicaly "Good", or at least the majority are. I simply do not belive that's true, which is why the "don't cause harm to others" needs to be in there.

Of course, it wont, but humanity is a fucked race hastening it's own destruction & causing as much damage it can in the mean time....

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Actually, I don't see it that way. People _aren't_ intrisically good. And if you look at the world, you'll see exploitation all over the place.

In this country, our society has moderated the tendancy somewhat, by imposing a system of laws, police and politics. It's still power, but the majority are using their power to keep the status quo.

The idea I'm aiming for is that it won't ever change unless someone chooses to do it. If you're greedy and want to rip someone off, then there really is very little that can be done to stop you. Just consequences for your actions.