Antistoicus recently responded to an article I wrote about the blog he founded and my sorrow at seeing it seem to die out. He and I share a basic philosophy that seems to be sadly neglected in modern paganism: that of the existence of a universal morality, or sense of “values.” Even people who read and enjoy his writing largely don’t seem to understand what lies at its core:

… [L]ook at the guestbook for the Almond Jar… Count the number of people who post things like “wonderful site, greatly agree”, but under “morality, subjective or objective” answer “subjective”. Most of the site consists of an attempt to construct an objective theory of morality, in which most of the theology is partially rooted. More often than not, the fan club didn’t even read what they were praising.

Values were never a side issue as far as I was concerned, but among those I find myself meeting through Paganism, values seldom seem to be of interest. There are exceptions to this, of course, but relatively few, even among the Conservatives, who one might think would respond positively to the concept of “traditional Western values”.

I haven’t written much about ethics and morality lately, but some may remember one of my first major articles , in which I said something very similar. Earlier drafts of the article were actually much more strongly worded on this issue, but I didn’t want to alienate what I know to be the vast majority of the pagan community, so I toned it down a bit. Now I feel like turning it back up a notch.

To me, morality cannot be separated from spirituality. Morality, or more precisely, the philosophy of ethics, concerns itself with what I has long been convinced is the ultimate question about life: what is the best way to go about the business of living? How do we live our lives as best as possible? Can there be anything more important than that?

The biggest impediment to meaningful discussion on ethics is the wide popularity of moral relativism. If it is true that “what may be good for you, might not be good for someone else” or “every path is valid,” the discussion ends there. There is nothing meaningful to talk about if the entirety of ethics is as much a matter of personal preference as what flavor ice cream you like. Dialogue is stifled, and we are left with fairly worthless crumbs — “bumper-sticker” philosophy in place of real discourse. Moral relativism, though, is really just a product of sloppy thinking. When probed, I am convinced that any sensible person espousing moral relativism would find they don’t really believe what they are saying. They often have very distinct and sometimes very restrictive moral values that they are very happy to impose on others. But, because they believe in, or think they believe in, a kind of moral relativism, they never examine just what their code of morals really is, and what parts of it should or shouldn’t be imposed on others.

Most Pagans (since Wicca accounts for the vast majority of modern pagans, like it or lump it) have a basic rule of ethical behavior: the Rede. It reads, after stripping the pretentious “Olde Englyshe,” something like: “you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anybody.” It would seem this is a completely useless principal if not universally applied. But, because of the lack of real discourse concerning the Rede’s meaning, caused by the fallacious concept of moral relativism, we are left with the Rede as the end of moral discussion when it is at best just the most very basic of beginnings. The first question that pops to my mind after hearing the Rede is: “what should I do when my actions will hurt somebody?” There is no advice at all. Some Wiccans interpret the read in an extreme Jainist-like way to mean you are not allowed to cause harm. Ever. At least that has some consistency to it, as impracticable as it may be. But even then, you have to think about what it means to “harm” someone.

“Ethical use of Magick” seems to be the only popular area of ethical discussion, and even that is typically childishly simplistic. I participated in a few online discussions about ethics and magic(k), suspending any disbelief I may have in the efficacy of magic for the sake of discussion, though my comments were mostly ignored. “Don’t impose on the free will of others,” was the entirety of the ethical considerations I could glean from these long discourses. Make sure you put in all your spells some words such as: “and not interfering with the free will of others,” and you were pretty much covered. As I pointed out in the discussions, I can think of many situations where it is perfectly justifiable to impose on the free will of others in “non-magical” contexts. For example, I consider it completely moral to impose on the free will of someone wanting to burglarize my house and coerce their actions through force of violence or the threat of it. It seems to me that if it is ethical or moral to do something without magic, it is to do so with it as well.

So, if we are willing to concede, at least for the sake of argument, that morality is a universal, where do we begin our more serious discussions? My “Virtues” article focused more on aspirations rather than minimal requirements, but minimal standards bear examination. I think Antistoicus’ work on the subject is an excellent framework and starting point. His Universal Base Code of Morality is well thought out and offers quite a lot of food for thought. I especially appreciated his discussion of Honor, which has always been a tricky, nebulous concept to me — one I had dismissed as being a useless “umbrella” term for various and disparate values. Now I am convinced the term can be used meaningfully. I am currently working on some “warrior path” kind of philosophical materials, and his concept of Honor will greatly inform the one I will adopt.

I, of course, believe that morality must be universal. And when I say universal, I mean universal. It applies equally to aliens from other planets and entities on other planes of existence. It applies to gods as well as men. That may be an extreme position. I am not sure. I think it’s worth discussing, though, just how universal “universal” should be. I am ever hopeful that this article might spark the kind of real and meaningful discussion about important topics that I always long for. I haven’t been involved in the pagan scene long enough to become disillusioned of that hope, but I suspect that, just as it happened to Antistoicus, I will be some day.