morality

[brown]

As satanists what is your outlook on morality? Is there a logical basis for right and wrong in a moral sense?

[zero]

my outlook on morals is every one has them. even a murderer who enjoys murdering has morals though they are different from many. morals are what one thinks is right and wrong and we all have our beliefs in that.

[valoursatanas]

Right and wrong is a matter of perspective. We are not the judge for others' morals. It's like good and evil. The victors are the judge, the losers the accused. In some cultures, the louder you speak, the more "right" you are considered to be.

[devakxes]

I generally live by ''an eye for an eye'' and ''do what thou will''

[krimson]

For me, morality is based on my personal beliefs. It is not my right to deny someone else their right to live or to impose negative consequences outside of karma. The consistent cycle of energy brings about justice and gives people what they truly deserve. To impose my own actions on top of this is violating the will of the universe, as such there will be consequences for me as well. It's all about energy and perception.

[captainrackham]

Morality is an invented, man-made thing. What is considered wrong in this society would be considered fine in another -- is one better than the other?

There are always two sides to every story, and almost always an explanation as to why something happens...
Americans love to hang their serial killers, but they ignore that they were likely once raped and violated children from horrible broken homes, with no guidance - and we somehow expected this individual to turn out 'good'?

granted the action of taking a life is not a 'good' course of action, because it's not a 'moral' but a 'more' -- things human beings know they just shouldn't do not because of rules but because it's *accepted* as something with a disliked outcome.

"An eye for an eye would make the world go blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

people should analyze their options, and weigh in how it effects the greater whole --
but laws, morals and other things? -- fake.
Watch everything be very different 50-100 years from now what is acceptable.

the end can always justify the means -- so long as you don't tamper with other people's choices and freewill :)

[dodaive]

As satanists what is your outlook on morality? Is there a logical basis for right and wrong in a moral sense?

It is first important to clear away misunderstandings because of semantics(words). I think the best reason to use the word satanism is to show that the truth manifests itself in many paths, ridding oneself of the us vs. them consciousness. There is a real world with real laws (Dao) separate from anyone's opinions(including mine). No matter how hard we try we are still only going to see a small part of it. Morality is difficult to get a grasp on, but the main underlying ideas are benevolence and to minimize harm to others. The two words that form the word for morality in Chinese The Real way and the part of self that interacts with the world. Christian reality tends to look at morality in terms of black and white answers.

[valoursatanas]

"An eye for an eye would make the world go blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

LaVeyan Satanism said that one should smash their enemies on both their cheeks if they smite you on one cheek. Doesn't that count as a form of revenge and self-preservation? I wonder if this would tamper with the enemies' free will and choices. Then again, do they have a choice when it's payback time? hmm...

[NTS]

LaVeyan Satanism said that one should smash their enemies on both their cheeks if they smite you on one cheek. Doesn't that count as a form of revenge and self-preservation? I wonder if this would tamper with the enemies' free will and choices. Then again, do they have a choice when it's payback time? hmm...

They don't really have a choice, no. But as it is to be assumed that this person has wronged you, then they must suffer the consequences of their action, and what is then to be assumed, is that they hopefully have learned a lesson and will consider their future choices in dealing with others.

As for morality, if only every faith, outlook, societal and personal ethic had a "Don't be a dick" clause......

[Cartoon Character]

It is first important to clear away misunderstandings because of semantics(words). I think the best reason to use the word satanism is to show that the truth manifests itself in many paths, ridding oneself of the us vs. them consciousness. There is a real world with real laws (Dao) separate from anyone's opinions(including mine). No matter how hard we try we are still only going to see a small part of it. Morality is difficult to get a grasp on, but the main underlying ideas are benevolence and to minimize harm to others. The two words that form the word for morality in Chinese The Real way and the part of self that interacts with the world. Christian reality tends to look at morality in terms of black and white answers.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Satanism shows the manifestation of many true paths, and that it helps to expel the duality of "Us vs. Them?" You are correct in that Dao is not dependent upon one's opinions or wishes, and that truth is truth whether we believe it or not. Having said that, morality itself is also inauthentic because it is a product of human law, not Divine Law. There is nothing inherent in creation that implies a moral structure, at least not in the way we understand "morality."

Daoism does have a moral code of sorts, but it basically consists of self-interest, a great degree of indifference, and Wu Wei (which also implies non-interference.) As you've pointed out, this is in sharp contrast to the modern Christian notion of morality. Daoism might advocate benevolence and minimizing harm to others, but that's mostly because it doesn't really care enough to cause said harm.


LaVeyan Satanism said that one should smash their enemies on both their cheeks if they smite you on one cheek. Doesn't that count as a form of revenge and self-preservation? I wonder if this would tamper with the enemies' free will and choices. Then again, do they have a choice when it's payback time? hmm...

There's nothing inherently wrong about wanting revenge in and of itself, and self-preservation is what we should all be concerned with. Who cares about their free will and choices? They're your enemy. Chances are good that they committed some sort of "free will violation" in order to become an enemy in the first place, so they get what they get. Ideally, the punishment should fit the crime, as they say, but that's all relative. Again, if you choose to take action, you also choose the repercussions of that action.

[dodaive]

Yes that is what I am saying, How are you defining "divine law"?

[dodaive]

There's nothing inherently wrong about wanting revenge in and of itself, and self-preservation is what we should all be concerned with. Who cares about their free will and choices? They're your enemy. Chances are good that they committed some sort of "free will violation" in order to become an enemy in the first place, so they get what they get. Ideally, the punishment should fit the crime, as they say, but that's all relative. Again, if you choose to take action, you also choose the repercussions of that action.[/QUOTE]

I have a very unique viewpoint on this. Having an enemy can be a blessing just like having a friend, but not if you harbor anger. I consider myself very skilled at avoiding situations where i would make an enemy. The easiest place to make enemies would be a place like fellow nurses working in the hospital backstabbing each other. Everyone is out for blood, so yes in this situation, as long as one has in his/her own conscious done the right thing by his/her colleagues, and is free of of hate in his heart, yes this is a situation where destroying the enemy is the right thing to do, and helpful to other nursing staff as well.

[dodaive]

Using that definition i would agree with you. Something completely different comes to my mind when I think of divine law, the definition you gave me is actually how I would define Dao 道

[dodaive]

yes thats right its undefinable, it really a matter of getting as close as we can but yes dao is always something even more then that, never arriving.
As for the cosmos keeping score, in terms of anything as abstract as good or bad is completely unconceivable to me.

[GaianGuy]

I'm not a Satanist, so I can't and won't try to comment on Satanist perspectives about morality.

A more general observation about morality & religious/ spiritual/ philosophical 'commandments'. Many people who belong to or were raised in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic church community seem to have great difficulty understanding the concept of self-directed moral/ethical principles. They can't seem to grasp, how anyone could possess a moral or ethical 'compass', if that 'compass' doesn't take the form of very specific, eternal, unalterable 'rules' dictated by a God.

Some religious zealots can't comprehend that other persons could be guided by very powerful yet deeply personal experiences of empathy, compassion and reason - and guided just as consistently by these experiences as any Church Believer devoted to following 'God's commandments' might be. The fact that this inability to comprehend comes up, again & again, over & over throughout our society, leads me to believe that such religious zealots might not have a genuine experience of empathy or compassion, that excessively religious upbringings might actually inhibit the development of natural empathy and compassion, creating emotional cripples who really are dependent on someone else to tell them what is "right" and what is "wrong" behaviour.

[dodaive]

Many people who belong to or were raised in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic church community seem to have great difficulty understanding the concept of self-directed moral/ethical principles. They can't seem to grasp, how anyone could possess a moral or ethical 'compass', if that 'compass' doesn't take the form of very specific, eternal, unalterable 'rules' dictated by a God.

Not just that specific concept, any concept these people don't understand the world like that. They use memorized sequential sets of rules to understand the world instead. The sequential items in a set don't have to be associated with each other. They are smart enough to memorize enough speech patterns though, to the point that they don't have to sound completely unable to conconceptualize (despite the fact that they are).
Now without being able to conceptualize, one is unable to reason, it is just based on rules. They're rules will easily get swayed to the general consensus.
Christianity or any other religion are
myths (cleverly crafted stories, that are meant to help a person understand and utilize complex truths that would otherwise be to overwheming to be useful)
The problem is that these people can get literal to the point that not even these well-designed stories work