From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Morality.      
Date & Time: 05/08/91 13:09:31
Message Number 16639

> Yeah.  Too bad it's inadequate.  I still maintain that "As it harms
> none, do as thou wilt" is more sophisticated and more generally
> useful as a moral code.  There are too many things the Golden Rule
> doesn't cover that are still immoral.
     
   Actually, I was thinking over "four levels" of morality:
    
   Crowley: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
   Wicca: "As it harms none, do as thou wilt."
   Buddhism: "Do not do unto others what don't want them to do unto you"
   Judaism: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
    
   (I consider Wicca and Buddhism approximately the same moral law,
one stated positively; one negatively.) 
   I'm not sure what "sophisticated" would mean, for a moral code.
If you mean "knowing" or "worldly-wise," I would disagree.  (Of course,
this depends on how one defines to "harm another."  For example, eating
beef in India would "harm" no other person, so would be allowable under
Wicca -- but would not be "worldly-wise.")  If you mean "intellectually
appealing," I can't argue in manners of taste.
    
   Again, I'm not sure how you'd define "useful" for a moral code.  Any
action allowed (nay, required) by the Jewish law would be allowed by
Wicca -- but not vice-versa.  Therefore, if your definition of "useful"
were based on freedom to choose, it would be more "useful."  If you were
to refer to how people think of your moral character, the Jewish one
would probably make people think more highly of you.
    
   I'm kind of surprised at your phrase "There are too many things the
Golden Rule doesn't cover that are immoral."  The biggest difference
between the Wicca rule and the Jewish one is permission versus
requirement.  I believe that if the Jewish moral code does not cover
a certain immoral act, then neither would the Wicca one.
     
   Any comments from y'all?
                        //Dragonfly//