Sometimes I feel like a bad Wiccan.

[ragnardragonkin]

So.  The most central tenant of Wicca is "Harm None."  To harm absolutely nothing through your life is a great goal, but hardly realistic.  We do have to eat, after all.  So how far do we take "Harm None?"  This may seem like a silly thing to worry about, I know.  It means that you don't go out and kick old ladies for fun.  But lets look at a moral

Comments

[hexeengel]

Hi. Jumped here from Wiccan so forgive the intrusion.

Harm does not equal hurt/pain/violence. Harm is intentional, malicious and wanton. The Rede is not a commandment, the word "Rede" means counsel or advice. And it is more complex than "Harm None." It states, "An it harm none, do what you Will." Your Will is your sense of what is appropriate and just in a given situation, not necessarily what you want. The Rede only comments on actions that cause no harm, that they are to be followed through with in accordance with Will. It says nothing about actions that do cause harm or contradict your Will. It doesn't threaten punishment, it is not a "thou shalt not" statement. Committing harmful or unwillful acts is at the discretion of the individual, and any consequences are then theirs to bear. The Rede necessitates introspection, forethought, and personal responsibility.

[ragnardragonkin]

See, I've had it explained to me slightly differently. "No harm be done, do as you will." Not Will, but will. Subtle, but it makes a world of difference. The explanation I was given applies not just to what you Will, but also to what you do without thinking. I also slightly disagree with you on the harm part. Harm can be caused intentionally or unintentionally. Becoming angry, depending on who's around and how empathic they are can cause harm.

I do see what you mean, and it does make more sense than the way I was originally taught. Not certain if I entirely agree, though. And I know that there isn't any punishment for not following the Rede other than what we bring onto ourselves. But I do want to live the ideal as best I can. I just feel like I don't do a good job, which brings up posts like this.

And the intrusion is welcomed. :D

[hexeengel]

Yes, I do define harm pretty narrowly. You almost have to, otherwise the Rede is just an ideal and very impractical advice. If hurt and harm were synonymous, then every time I accidentally bumped into my three year old as he careens through the house and knocked him down, it would be harm. Surgery to remove a tumor would be harm. Self-defense would be harm. Eating and breathing would be harm. Intent is the difference. Harm is the result of malicious intent. But pain or hurt without that intent, while unfortunate and unpleasant, is not harm.

I wrote an essay some years ago on the Rede: http://hexeengel.blogspot.com/2009/10/wiccan-ethics-i-explanation.html

[ragnardragonkin]

I think the breathing part might be stretching it, but yes. An unrealistic ideal if taken literally.

Still, I think I'll try to live by it, even if it gives me a goal that I can't quite reach.