Personal Ethics in Energy Work

[StormSeeker]

This may be stirring up a hornet's nest, or an interesting discussion. Given how I've seen threads on this particular topic go in the past, I'm hoping for the latter

I'm curious as to everyone's ethics here, who wish to share them, but (perhaps more importantly) also how you came to hold those views and beliefs in the first place.

Sometimes ethics come from a religion, other times they come from a teacher or multiple teachers, peers, parents, family, friends, even book and TV characters sometimes contribute to our ethical code. Did you always hold the same ethical views you do now? How have they changed over the years? What shaped them and why?

[Guest]

Its a difficult question for sure.

Like you said ethics can come from many things. I dont see myself as a very ethical person, but im sure I picked up things. There are ofcourse some basic things, dont kill, dont harm others, dont steal, but it all depends on the situation, so i cant say now that i wont ever cross my own ethics, or even change them. People have done some crazy things of which im sure they didnt think of as "bad" or unethical, maybe in the past they did. It can all change, it depends how your life goes and what situations arise.

I could make this post and sum up the things that comes to mind that are not ethical, but i wont know for sure till somethings happens that test them.

I think there are some things that are difined as unethical by alot of people, depending (again) on background of the culture. Mix this whit personal things and you get the final ethics, which may or may not be different as the general ethics in their culture.

Just one thing, be nice to others thats the only one that I really have. Doesnt always do it though, thats the thing, I just cant always do that.

What do you think storm, do you agree, what are your ethics ?

[Winter]

that was from me btw

Oh was it for energy work specific? Well i guess that would be pretty similar.

[Obsidian]

My ethical code is pretty simple.
Be nice, unless given reason to not do so.
Strive to be fair and just, when required.
Don't hit, hit back.

I don't let people walk on me, or mistreat me. If someone is giving me garbage for no reason, I'll either set 'em straight, or knock 'em out.
But if someone is being nice to me, and treating me fairly, I'll do everything I can do to the same in return. I've got an extremely guilty conscience, so even the slightest unwarranted assault on someone (mentally, physically, spiritually or emotionally) leaves a lasting impression with me.

My ethical code is constantly developing, as is everyone's, I believe. I can't picture it being possible for your standards to remain constant. Each new situation will measure up differently, and cause re-assessments of your views on the matter.
Over the years, my code has become more 'refined', in that I've got a greater understanding of what will cause me grief. I've had to add more to what I believe is 'right', in a given situation, as I've encountered more and varied problems recently.
My ethics have been shaped more by my situations, than by any mentor or guide. As it stands, my parents aren't exactly the best role-models, nor anyone else I know in-person. Some movies, and Television series, have somewhat contributed to my overall way to behave. And a particular book series I enjoy, as well.

I think, though...When it comes down to it, every situation is different. They all have different boundaries, and therefore can't be accurately measured against past experiences. When something comes up, I'll do what's best based on the most similar previous experience. And then incorporate the new results into the collective of ethics. If it's something completely new, I'll likely screw it up. Live and learn.

All that aside, I don't take lip without good reason. And I'm protective of those that I care about, no matter what the situation. I believe that's just human nature.

[FireEssence]

I used to be quite reckless and think you should do whatever you think you should to get ahead and if it involves hurting someone just make sure they a. can't hurt you and b. aren't someone you care about. This has changed and other tidbits have been added on.

Now I view it as more like this: If someone attacks you, you have the right to retaliate but that's pointless if they can obliterate you. In that case you should probably listen to teh advice of someone more experienced than you (Situation-wise) if you're lucky enought to get it, avoid any contact with the being if that's contributing, and also focus on safe ways of defending yourself if at all possible. Don't bring other people into personal situations unless it's either needed or they choose to get involved of their own volition. I view it as unethical to use people to some extent now, in the sense that if they're bragging about they're pretty shield designs and such and you like and copy it, I view that as okay. But if you're practicing scanning and you think so and so's shields are kinda nice, I think permission should be asked before you do something like steal their design. Stay out of people's heads unless you have good reason. (Finding out if Billy likes you doesn't count) I don't think influencing people via an energetic medium is ethical as it just isn't right in my mind. Using magical means to get revenge on someone who is magically active has become something I view as wrong now as well.

My entire ethical outlook has changed over the course of 1-2 years in reality, mainly due to situations which have arisen due to my problems with thinking certain things were ethical.

[Naryx]

Morality is a creation of sentient life forms as a defense against the following fact.

Reality, is blind, amoral, and radically terrible and absurd. It cares nothing for you. Reality is Azathoth.

Now thats out on the table, I suppose I should make clear my own stance. If the proposition put foreward is valid, why should we be anything but what we are, creatures of reality? That is to say, why should we erect purely ornamental and utterly useless moralities onto ourselves?

[Strider]

Long have I sat and debated this topic with myself. Moreso prior to this topics posting then after though due to boredom between classes and various other events currently plaguing my life I figure I might as well post on it.

Note: These are my views, and while I am a ranking member of Omnimancy, they do not reflect the teachings of Omnimancy.

There is a set divide between Morals and Ethics.

Morals are laws and guidelines set down by society (be it religion, culture, etc) and often reflect the established powers best interest in the guise of Utilitatian Political Propaganda to convince the non-power-elite masses that following them is a good thing (Note: Historicaly even the Pope had Mistresses).

Ethics are ones own interpretation of set morals as well as legalistic laws and general as well as specific rules and guidlines of a society. Ethics tend to vary from person to person and ultimately one can only passed biased judgement on anothers set of Ethics, there is no pure way of judging them.

To quote Naryx partially. "Reality, is blind, amoral, and radically terrible and absurd. It cares nothing for you. "

This is infact, a decently true statement on a meta-structural level. Reality as a hole could care less, however the reality of reality is that entities, be they human or spirit, do have political agenda's, religious beliefs, personal opinions, so forth and so on. Due to the nature of being human we are forced to function in a global society as well as interpersonal societies while we live. As such we are in a never ending flux, an "eternal struggle for Equilibrium" to quote some philosophers or, as I like to view it, a game in which we play to amuse ourselves while governed by societies we are forced into by our human nature.

Astrally this also holds true to an extent as there are established power bases within Pantheons and Inter-Pantheon to "govern" their holdings in the astral. A disincarnite entity has a greater chance to not involve themselves in the games they play on the Astral then what occurs on the physical only through the sheer fact that, provided they are not a bound minion, they have the choice not to exist within the Pantheonic holdings. Then again, on some paradoxical level this is a form of forced conformity to societal influence.

Anyway, I digress.

My personal Ethics revolve around many aspects of the Asatruar Noble Virtues, though by no means are completely bound by them. I function within what I have defined as Honorable standards while also maintaining my own personal psuedo-Nietzchian/Social Darwinistic views on life.

What his means is that I treat people with respect that I accord to most till they proove themselves not worthy of it by my standards. This can be best exemplified by someone who -has taken a brutally uncivil stance towards my friends with no signs of any greater thoughts to there actions aside from the thrill of being difficult and perhaps for some unfounded subconcious (or maybe even concious) ego trip- being treated with less respect then someone who validly inquires and debates with the forms of civility shown on the forums.

Also given my personal beliefs I tend to feel that retributions of actions or perfectly fine given the contextual situation. If someone decks me, and expects me not to fight back, they are greatly mistaken. I will deck them back according to how I see fit. If they learn not to deck me by me decking back then all is sound. If they continue to persist then I will go about my means to ensure that they will learn there lesson. Be this an increased use of force that is relevant to the situation or by just ignoring them, pending my mood and how much of a daft dumbass I percieve them to be. Some people are just not worth dealing with after a certain point, especially persistant snerts who think they need to proove something for what ever reasons they have.

On a different note: I do believe that when dealing with a group situation a person should expect themselves to be judged and interpreted by others. Fuck the meta-reality we are all death incarnite bullshit. If you expect people to take you for who you are expect their critique and lack of acceptance if, you, as a person, proove to be unliked by the group. By the nature of the beast that is invoked by interacting socially you are either accpeted or rejected, there is no great mandate that people accept you just because they should. That is true pure ignorance of the bound and locked reality you need to face as a human.

-Rich
PS: I can banter more but class does call. Time to shred peoples views of American Society.

PPS: Any Questions, Comments, Conerns, or Death Threats? POST THEM. They who do not speak their mind are given to Parinia, delusion, and ignorance.

[StormSeeker]

Comment, yes. A couple, actually

First, to Naryx: the title of the post includes the word "ethics", not "morals" or "morality". There is a difference, and since Rich just pointed that difference out, I won't go back over it.

Also, on the basic level, yep, reality couldn't give a rat's ass about much. But then, reality doesn't act upon us - those residing in reality, as Rich once again pointed out - do. And therein lies the reality of reality. As those living in reality, WILL care how you act, should you cross their threshold or their lines or paths with them in a way which doesn't agree.

Rich, I keep meaning to ask you: from whereforth, does your definitions for morals and ethics, come from? *is curious* Specific source(s), or personal definitions? I'm not entirely sure I agree that ethics are solely an "interpretation of morals" so much as them being also, a "personal selection" perhaps, of which morals which people choose to adhere to themselves.

I don't agree with the philosophers who believe we're struggling to attain "Equilibrium". Equilibrium, by it's very definition is balance or stability. And I think the majority of those who struggle for anything, struggle to sate their own desires and motives - which are less likely to be for "balance", than they are to be for personal gain.

People, individuals, may strive for equilibrium, in their personal lives and realities. But that's a person. That isn't necessarily society as a whole.

The majority view is usually forced on us, and with little personal power to stand up against a force greater than the self, it's difficult to overthrow the majority. Perhaps why there is 'safety in numbers'.

Then again, on some paradoxical level this is a form of forced conformity to societal influence.

Howso?

[Strider]

Rich, I keep meaning to ask you: from whereforth, does your definitions for morals and ethics, come from? *is curious* Specific source(s), or personal definitions? I'm not entirely sure I agree that ethics are solely an "interpretation of morals" so much as them being also, a "personal selection" perhaps, of which morals which people choose to adhere to themselves.

My definitions are my own derived from my many years of ramblings with my varried Philosophy professors.

Ethics, I should also say, which I had forgetten to mention in my previous post, not only are a persons interpretation of morals but also a set of self imposed guidlines for interaction within society. A persons ethos determines attitude and treatement towards others. (Think for a moment if you want to argue this. Combined with your deminor your ethos provides rules for interaction in the form of what is exceptable and what is not. )

Equilibrium, by it's very definition is balance or stability

Equilibrium by its very nature is flux because once it is stable it struggles against instability, ever changing. Equilibrium are the lines between order and chaos. Hence, why I view it as more of a game then anything else.

the majority of those who struggle for anything, struggle to sate their own desires and motives - which are less likely to be for "balance", than they are to be for personal gain.

Personal desires, personal motives, a struggle to gain something they desire versus not having or being denied. Sounds to me to be a form of balance, though not in a traditional spiritual sense, but even then a traditional sense of balance varies from tradition to tradition, person to person. Wether a person will acknowledge that they seek a balance, it is there choice, but it does not mean it is not there.

That isn't necessarily society as a whole.

The majority view is usually forced on us, and with little personal power to stand up against a force greater than the self, it's difficult to overthrow the majority. Perhaps why there is 'safety in numbers'

[/quote]

Thus the societal Equilibrium exists. Society is stable because it controls the majority, however unstable because as you pointed out, it relies on supression of the minority. The Masses vs the Individual. The Individual is shaped by the society, the society is shaped by the individuals.

Quote:
Then again, on some paradoxical level this is a form of forced conformity to societal influence.


Howso?

By choosing not to interact with a society you have to conform your behavioraal patterns to avoid interaction. Even it is as something as simple as never setting foot in a certain area.

[Satsung]

Hm, this is probably one of those topics that can be as simple or complex as you would like it to be.

Simple = Do to other people what you want them to do to you.

Complex = Do not interfere with the direct will of an individual? Someone may say they don't want you to do something... but do they Really mean that? Would they say 'thank you for not doing what I thought I wanted', later? What way is used to define doing something benefical? If you help a butterfly out of their transformation wrapper.. you weaken them and they may die. Or is it better to do nothing? Inaction is still a choice to do something in a situation.... so on and so forth...

[Strider]

Simple = Do to other people what you want them to do to you.

Ah but what about people who do unto you what they don't want done onto them?

Complex = Do not interfere with the direct will of an individual? Someone may say they don't want you to do something... but do they Really mean that? Would they say 'thank you for not doing what I thought I wanted', later? What way is used to define doing something benefical? If you help a butterfly out of their transformation wrapper.. you weaken them and they may die. Or is it better to do nothing? Inaction is still a choice to do something in a situation.... so on and so forth...

Not interfering with the direct will of the person who has a gun to your head. ::nods:: SOmetimes the best intensions and choices that would personally make you feel like you've made the right choice don't always line up.

Just my two cents as the resident philosopher. ::smiles:: Feel free to rebut.

[StormSeeker]

Ah but what about people who do unto you what they don't want done onto them?

And aren't there a great many of those in the world *nods*

Complex = Do not interfere with the direct will of an individual? Someone may say they don't want you to do something... but do they Really mean that? Would they say 'thank you for not doing what I thought I wanted', later? What way is used to define doing something benefical? If you help a butterfly out of their transformation wrapper.. you weaken them and they may die. Or is it better to do nothing? Inaction is still a choice to do something in a situation.... so on and so forth...

If you help it do what it's attempting -- lend a hand, you could say (or two, if you so desire to) -- you're not interfering with it's will, since I'm sure it's focus is on getting out in the first place (since a fully formed butterfly has to get free of the caterpillar's cocoon to survive).

As for the 'thank you for not doing what I thought I wanted'...I've had someone say that to me, and I've said it multiple times to people *g* Often, more often than not, we believe we know what's best for us, to the exclusion of any advice others may give us. Many times we do, sometimes, we do not. So yeah, I've seen that phrase or similar come up in real life conversations before

Regarding what you said on inaction...I quite agree: "If you choose not do decide, you still have made a choice" (Rush, "Freewill" - good song, that. Good band, too)

[Naryx]

Mankind is a creature of war, pillage, and cruelty. Why should we act any different than we are? Before you go off the handle with some bullshit, think about how many wars and atrocities have happened in the last 2500 years.

[StormSeeker]

Because we choose to?

Or can choose to? Same as some choose to act in the manner you've described?

And obviously because we prefer one choice over another *nod* be it consciously or unconsciously decided.

[Spartan]

Can we choose?

If we are not free to choose, then we have no morals, and then an act/decision can not be considered ethical.

It can be argued if we are free or not free to choose though. Some say we are not free because everything is decided by fate, or a 'God' or some even say society has so much influence on us, that we cannot choose.