Oh dear...facing challenges

[Helen]

I'm battling with Satanism's relativist approach versus my instinctive belief that some things just ARE wrong. I haven't slept all night because I was studying and I therefore cannot be specific right now as to what I believe is always wrong, regardless of circumstance.
OK rape. Rape is always wrong.
I accept that to the rapist chances are in some way they feel it is right, so yes good and bad right and wrong are subjective to the individual. But this appraoach can lead only to moral nihilism which has to be hypocritical. We act in accordance with our own ideas of rght and wrong, is it not then in some way hypocritical to stand by and watch the same wrong thing being done to someone else and do nothing hiding behind the argument that I have no right to state what is right and what is wrong because it's all relative anyway? To declare there is no right and wrong because we can't agree upon what they are. Or is Satanism all about finding YOUR honest right and wrong and ensuring that no wrongs are committed in your world?
Aaaargh!
Any thoughts?

[Stuart Ellaway]

Ok I had to think about this one.

I had to look deep into my own beliefs and my answer is probably going to be unpopular.

Satanism as you say is about finding YOUR own personal moral guidelines. At the same time you can't impose these guidelines on anyone else no matter how correct you think they are. Everyone has the right to impose their own morals. I had a long debate with a friend of mine a while back about the phrase 'you should' not being in a satanists vocabulary.

As you say there are things that are commonly held as wrong in all of our morals. However there are some people that don't have the same moral guidelines and believe it to be right.

Here comes an unpopular statement:
Some people may believe that racism is morally wrong, abysmal and abhorrant. However some people believe strongly that their society is being polluted and believe otherwise. These people though abhorrant to others have a right to belive what they want to believe. (btw not all racist people are mindless thugs, some are extremely intelligent people with hardline ideas.) Now the satanic principal states that as long as you break no laws you have the right to believe what you want. This means that believing your black neighbour is a pollutant to society is up to you, but kicking the living daylights out of him because of the colour of his skin is illegal and you should be prosecuted.

Most laws prohibit such acts and act as a moral safety net for those that can't keep their moralities civil. You can believe its right to rape but you will be severely punished by the law of the land and good riddance to you.

Having said that there are people that are simply not capable of making moral decisions and these people need help. Your average serial killer, rapist, peadophile etc has something chemically wrong with their brains. These people are not capable of creating their own moral structure and thus need one oppressed on them. The controversy here is who's morality do you use to oppress them?

There are however some people that are oppertunists and do things they know themselves to be wrong. People that act on compulsion beyond their own moral guidelines. These people also need help.

So I think to answer your question is it right to stand by and let people breach what you feel is morally correct I think it depends if the law of the land is being broken, or if the person commiting the acts need help.

Magistrate Ellaway

[Helen]

Yes but where do laws come from?
They come from human beings. They are as subject to the individual ideas of right and wrong of the law-makers as any one else's ideas of right and wrong.
So the law is not the be all and end all it must also be questioned as I'm sure you'd agree.
Therefore there must be in some way some basis for establishing right and wrong. OK your point about freedom of thought is fair enough but freedom of action must be restrained in some way or rapists, psychopaths etc. would never be restrained.
This is an enormous philosophical argument. I know what I'm saying is not exactly on the surface in keeping with Satanism but I have a feeling I can reconcile my instincts with Satanism but I can't put my finger on it yet. (Just like the way I was able to reconcile it with my lack of belief in magic.)
On a personal level, what I deem right and wrong is enough for me, I don't need an outside authority. I believe that if you don't like the laws you should try to change them. I don't like a law that adversely effects me, I work to change it. But in another situation:I don't like a law that adversely effects someone else, because of it their voice can't be heard, should I keep quiet because it isn't my place? Hell no, I'm going to say something. Ultimately because of two reasons. I'm ridding myself of the feelings of hatred I have for the law existing by wiping it out and I 'm guarding my own ass against the possibility of future oppressive laws being passed because next time it might be me who is oppressed.
The law cannot be our deciding factor which makes us judge whether or not to act because perhaps some things aren't illegal which should be and because the law isn't always right. Where does this right or wrong come from?
I think this is one of the biggest issues we can ever tackle.
I was tackling it when answering a question on human rghts and anthropology. I was dealing with whether or not there is some kind of commonality among us as a species as to what we believe is the right and wrong way to treat each other. I was trying to decide what is due to each of us as human beings, a basic standard of dignity or level of self-determination or whatever.
I have a few ideas based on the Aristotelian virtues as explored by two anthropologists already. I would hope that on the basis of this commonality, if it ever could be established or identified, we might be able to work out some sense of universal right and wrong.
The conclusion I reached was that everyone should do things my way. I'm a fascist!

[CCaineDD]

I think all laws benefit the enforcer. Even if there is a million people fully behind that enforcer, there's another million living under his law that are totally against it. Yet then there's the half million that believe in some but not all of the imposed laws...... There'll always be room for complaining and criticism as long as the following isn't total.
France bans religious symbols and shit!
Person one: Yay.. I'm an athiest.
Person two: Well.... I liked my cross earings, but that's ok I guess..
Person three: Awsome! That damn X next door is open game! just let me catch him....
( Of course referring to the main target of Islamics, etc. Where do they 'tow the line'? Girls with towels on their heads coming out of a pool? ) Using this as an example, I can see that perception is being used as the only enforcement mechanism. Do you believe that towel on your head is spiritual or to keep your hair out of your face? And what does the perceiver of you think it represents to you?

I'd say let everyone decide for themselves what's right, but my idea of freedom is kind of fend-for-yourself and not too widely supported. I just pretend it's not there and don't pay attention to the media, and we get along fine. See, most peoples moral's lie within the boundaries of society, it's the way the enforcers disrespect the enforced, and the way the enforced hate the enforcers.
One of my perceptions on the subject.

[psiangel]

My opinion is harm non and do what you wilt,...... unless your in my way in witch case ill use the amount of force I have to with braking as little laws as I have to ;D