ETHICS & VALUES IN DRUIDISM

[Dair Ciúin]

The thing about ethics, values and so-called "dogma" is that it doesn't take much for a religious organisation to abuse them - either through hypocrisy or using them to impose on the lives of its followers. Often, it only takes one bad experience to cloud one's opinions about every single religious group. Indeed, some very oppressive faiths do exist. However, when religion works well it provides a friendly, compassionate community of like-minded people who feel that they can truly identify with the other followers. I’m not trying to preach, but am instead highlighting the beneficial sides to a religious structure that often get overlooked.

I understand what your saying, though, Fae. We each have our views, and that is a great thing. But in regards to "those who need someone to tell them how to think, feel and believe", I do not agree to that. Variance in beliefs, even in strict mainstream religions, does exist.

[EarthWard]

Druidry is not what people say it is
Druidry is the people that say it is

Each of us hold different outlooks on our lives and our world. An example is shown right here on the boards where we all came together because of druidry, but we all have different visions of what that druidry is. Come to think of it, I think all walks go through this. Look how many different forms of Christianity there is and Muslim sects. It seems that people pool towards what moral or ethic code they agree with most, but they are still held together by a common bond like a figure head. IMO, Druidry's common bond is of Nature and the love/reverence for it and the freedom we have to do what feels 'natural'. Of course others would not agree, proving the point that we all have different outlooks on it.
From what I know of the Brehon laws, they were laws that acknowledge that the right answer for one, would not be the right answer for all. That’s an important concept for me, and equals to the love of all Existences.
Peace,
EW

But most important, I feel, is that we accept and understand each other and that we know that we all feel this way, and we all have the inner light, not just a chosen one or few. This very important understanding is at the core of Druidy and it's values as I know it.

Right on!

[Alferian]

Well, I for one, am happy to see the piece on the OBOD site because I can link to it for my Avalon College course in Magical Philosophy and Ethics. In that course, I'm grappling with something a bit more narrow, and broader in some ways -- the ethics implied in magical philosophy. I tend to think of this from a Druidic perspective, though.

What struck me about the essay in question was the relative absence of the doctrine of love. For me it is love that lies at the foundation for ethical behavior. That starts with a different premise than Truth. For me, the concept of "truth" is a slippery fish. Love is slippery too, of course. Folks like to talk about "universal truths" and all that, but that way of thinking about truth often troubles me. Truth isn't a thing, IMHO, it's a process. Our ability to examine ourselves and our world, to understand not only how the natural world works but how societies and our own minds and feelings work -- that ability to perceive and think leads to what we call truth. But, obviously, different people will arrive at different "truths" when the perception and thinking is done. What we choose to call truth is dependent upon our metal frames and the premises from which we reason.

So, what does it mean in general to love truth? It seems to me that that concept of Truth with a capital T is not so much about getting the facts right, as it is about human intention. The underlying ethical point here is that Druids believe that telling the truth is right and good. In other words, you could be wrong, but you don't deliberately lie about things to cover up your goals or ambitions. When advising kings, for instance, the Druid might well say, "Always speak the truth." This doesn't require the king to possess Absolute Truth or the Knowledge of All Things. It just requires him to be informed and to not deliberately mislead other people with lies and half-truths. Doing so is, of course, something humans have been doing ever since they learned to talk. So, it is a really important point of reference for an ethical code of conduct. It's doubly important when dealing with social leaders -- especially elected leaders, as the Celtic kings were in some senses. Elected leaders will lie to save their heads. They will lie and tell half-truths in order to keep power to themselves or their particular group of friends, or their family. The Druid emphasis on truth says, that's not good.

The corrollary of this idea of Truth as the basis of an ethics is that if any of your other behavior causes you to have to lie about it because of repercussions or shame, then those behaviors are probably bad too.

Loosh mentioned Hippocrates and the "do no harm" rule of medical ethics. Sadly, we see how this can go astray. Such a simple statement, but modern technology and lawyers have created a medical system in which "harm" has been blown all out of proportion. The issue is not to do deliberate harm. Physicians should not poison people on purpose. They should not hurt people through willful neglect either. But making mistakes is not a breach of ethics, it is a mistake. Refusing to make ammends or harm caused by mistakes is a breach of ethics.

It's a big subject, and for the most part, Druid ethics are not much different from Christian or Buddhist ethics. Codes are guides and won't do any good if people ignore them. The particular thing that sets modern Druid ethics apart is that it de-emphasizes blind trust and obedience to authorities, rejects the idea that there are any scriptures that are particularly more sacred than others, and grounds its ideal of respect and love in the whole natural world, not just the human community.

I myself disagree with those who go farther and suggest that an ethical system can be grounded in Nature itself (as natural science sees it) if that argument is used to justify a lack of compassion. Some, who see Nature red in tooth and claw believe that being "natural" means ignoring ethics altogether as a mere human accretion on the nobility of nature. Such a stance is sometimes used to justify leaving other people alone and letting them kill each other or die of disease. If one wants to "return" humans to a pre-civilized idea of right behvior, then I suppose the place to start is with chimpanzees and their society. But the thing is, we did start there and we've come a long way from that for good reasons. One of the reasons for complicated ways of treating each other compassionately is that we are so interdependent upon one another and there are so many of us. If one's attitude is, by contrast, "Let them eat cake!" then there is not really much need to waste energy justifying it by and ethical code.

I find it quite interesting to seek to base a human ethical system in the wisdom that can be learned from ecology. I haven't read Brendan Meyers book "Dangerous Religion" yet but have a copy of it and hope to do so one of these days. He's mentioned in the article on ethics, and I find him very lucid.

Blessings and Love,

Alferian

[Azrienoch]

One of the reasons for complicated ways of treating each other compassionately is that we are so interdependent upon one another and there are so many of us. If one's attitude is, by contrast, "Let them eat cake!" then there is not really much need to waste energy justifying it by and ethical code.

Moral codes are, by definition, standards of conduct that suppress instinctive thoughts and actions. Therefore, this is a rather obvious statement, because it would be amoral and not a moral system. I think you have a misconceived notion of what "science" says, because science doesn't really say anything. It just points and says, "Look at that."

[Tinne]

Greetings.
Agree with you whole heartedly Fae.
And Azrienoch has a point science does not say anything it is how it is interpretated.
Truth is such a dodgy concept ,i think we have to free ourselves from concepts like this as they are so rooted in the sterile soil of thousands of years of patriarchy. They become a crutch, a dependace and limit possibillities. for instance what if there are no truths?What if as some streams of thought suggest , this existance is maya, illusion. Anyone who has experienced visions or transrational experiences would recognise that certain laws in this conciousness are meaningless in others.
Truth also depends on the observer, a thousand people might condem a man to death , but they could be so wrong. Value analyisis is preferable to value judgement imo.
Also there is a problem within druidry of outer form and inner form. We are encouraged to explore ethical issues, in a much deeper aspect than mundanes(ooer sorrry can't think of any other way to describe to mass of preople that really don't consider anything in any depth at all) Because we know that the easist descision or the safest looking route is not nessersaraly the right one we do not rush into things, this leaves us open to accusasion of fence sitting, appathy or arrogance. When we say we can govern ourselves, we don't need rules, it's not because of arrogance it's because we know we had better not misuse our 'powers' as there would be hell to pay.
Natural law sorry can't go for that at all. a, who is going to translate from nature,
b, surley what is a law for one species is not the same for another.
nO sorry can't get into that. but as a Taoist i do follow the Tao which means i gain a lot of my understanding of things from the appearence of the world around me.
Floral tributes
tinne.

[Alferian]

Moral codes are, by definition, standards of conduct that suppress instinctive thoughts and actions. Therefore, this is a rather obvious statement, because it would be amoral and not a moral system. I think you have a misconceived notion of what "science" says, because science doesn't really say anything. It just points and says, "Look at that."

Well, my friend, you sound like you are attacking my statements here, which I doubt is your intention. Defiing morality is not by any means that simple, nor is the ideology of science. I cannot agree with your statement that "science doesn't really say anything." That, to my mind, is a very naive notion of what science is and the many parts it plays in our construction of reality. I should have thought that you knew my views on this subject, since we've talked about it before.

Science, like all human things, does not exist without cloaking itself in a mythos -- that is even a devotion to pure reason and empirical objectivity is itself a story, a myth. That doesn't make it wrong -- or no more wrong than any other attempt to seek truth -- but it is, I believe, a mistake to simply buy into the myth of objectivity. I suspect that you have not actually bought into that myth, knowing your skeptical bent these days, and it may be that is what you meant when you said, "It just points and says 'Look at that.'"

I feel compelled to point out that you are rhetorically contradicting yourself when you personify "science" and put its remarks in quotation marks. Science is not monolithic, nor personified, and indeed yes, it does not speak. But metaphorically speaking, the tendency of scientific thought as it has come to be institutionalized through schools and popular stories is that it is purely objective and omnipotent -- a collective technique of applied reason that takes the place of God in those respects. I say that such ideas are myths because they are not really supported by scientific thinking itself. We have no reason to conclude that anything or anyone is purely objective or omnipotent. But the desire for that God creeps into even the most rationalist and positivist of ideologies.

To be clear (I hope), I don't believe that morality is quite the same thing as ethics. A moral code aims to preserve the mores of a culture, which is to say, those behaviors that are accepted as normal and proper. Moral codes do not need to be based on principles, but can simply be attributed to such arbitrary notions as "God's will" or "we've always done it that way."

An ethical code, it seems to me, is something grounded in philosophical principles. It is deductive, rather than inductive, if you follow me. Rather than taking a long list of rules about behavior, relationships, and diet (as one finds in the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, etc.) and developing general principles from the particulars, ethics tends to seek out the general principles and derive behavior from them. This would be the case in the Druidic ethics essay under discussion here, where a certain idea of truth-telling is taken as a guiding principle.

The problem I have with taking truth-telling as an absolute principle, is that a community that does so must be prepared to constantly question and examine its own assumptions about what is true. Newton's laws of motion were absolute truths until quantum physics changed the paradigm. It was a common truth that the Druid's built Stonehenge until carbon dating and a shift away from the Bible as a reliable historical record changed the view of the pre-roman world. That's why I say that seeking truth is a process. It isn't about some "thing" called Truth. It's about a process. And that is what science is about at its core too -- it rose out of the same historical impuses as the Druid revival -- striving against an entrenched religions notion of truth as the adherence to authorities. Against that idea (which ruled the Middle Ages) was a new notion of individuals asking questions, challenging accepted opinions and norms, even accepted mores (such as the class system for instance). We have come a long way, obviously, but still have miles to go before we sleep.

And one thing that I might raise too, something that is near and dear to me, is the ideal of education. I believe that pagan philosophy has embraced this ideal and Druid philosophy (whether "pagan" or not) should logically do the same. I suspect Tinne and Kernos will disagree, but education seems to me absolutely essential for the search for truth. Education of a particular kind: one that does not seek to indoctrinate or condition students into passivity and obedience, bur rather encourages them to always be aware of their own mental frames, the dominant paradigms of our culture, and to appreciate knowledge and understanding as ever-changing and dynamic. It is that attitude which makes me bristle a bit whenever I here esotericists talking about "universal truths" or "eternal verities." If we believe that Nature is fundamentally dynamic and changing, then our ethics must embrace that and not speak in terms such as eternal verities and all that. Often what people mean by that term are such statements as "All Things are One" which is something I myself embrace. But is it eternal and is it true? Who knows? "All things are Two" might be almost as true and it might seem a bit paradoxical for them both to be true.


Peace,

Alferian

[Azrienoch]

Well, I must admit (because I'm not bad like that) that I was attacking them. As you said, and as I do understand, ethics are principles, and I do think that moral codes fall subject to ethics. That being said, I should think that it's perfectly fine to attack a statement on ethics or morals with reason.

Science is not monolithic, nor personified, and indeed yes, it does not speak. But metaphorically speaking, the tendency of scientific thought as it has come to be institutionalized through schools and popular stories is that it is purely objective and omnipotent -- a collective technique of applied reason that takes the place of God in those respects.

While science is strictly objective, it never claims (as much as it metaphorically can) to be omnipotent. Perhaps it is assumed of science that it is omnipotent in the realm of objectivity alone, but has never (again, metaphorically speaking) claimed that rule over subjectivity.
To digress only slightly, it is the mindset of a small number of people who use science (and even a few that don't) that say that there is no subjectivity. That, you are correct, is close-minded. But you are more likely to find this sort of personal philosophy in intelligent design scientists than you are in, well, actual scientists. Many scientists are religious, and are perfectly comfortable with the relationship that these two "mythoi" have inside them. Even most scientists who aren't religious understand this compatibility. I can't back this up with statistical data, but this seems to be something that is always stressed in the science books I've read.
So getting back to the subject, yes, it does take the place of God in a sense, but only an objective god, because it does not claim omnipotence over subjectivity. This is what is inside the (apparently, poor) joke that I made where science just points and says, "Look at that." Can't very well point or look at a subjective thing!

The problem I have with taking truth-telling as an absolute principle, is that a community that does so must be prepared to constantly question and examine its own assumptions about what is true. Newton's laws of motion were absolute truths until quantum physics changed the paradigm. It was a common truth that the Druid's built Stonehenge until carbon dating and a shift away from the Bible as a reliable historical record changed the view of the pre-roman world. That's why I say that seeking truth is a process. It isn't about some "thing" called Truth. It's about a process. And that is what science is about at its core too -- it rose out of the same historical impuses as the Druid revival -- striving against an entrenched religions notion of truth as the adherence to authorities. Against that idea (which ruled the Middle Ages) was a new notion of individuals asking questions, challenging accepted opinions and norms, even accepted mores (such as the class system for instance). We have come a long way, obviously, but still have miles to go before we sleep.

I had meant to tell you this in the first post, but I'd forgotten; I agree with you. Science does too (which is where a lot of my confusion about your inhibitions about science comes from).
Here's another thing I wanted to challenge from your first statement: truths in the above sense are, I think, different from historical or circumstantial truth. For instance, when I lied about doing my homework to my parents, that was untrue in a historical or circumstantial way. What about Princess Leia when she lies about knowing where the rebel headquarters is? I know it's not historical, but it is a circumstantial lie. In your first post, fourth paragraph, you say that this is wrong. But she's doing it for the good of the cause. What about the ancient druids (I know that this doesn't necessarily mean modern druids) when Saint Patrick burned all the "druid's books?" Even if that didn't exactly happen that way, did the druids simply not repent of their pagan ways and die? If they didn't, it may not have been the best thing for the religion to become Christians, but it was for the people.
So getting back to the paragraph above, I think that even this truth about no absolute truths isn't absolute. I know, I know, it creates a paradox, but I'm too lazy to attempt to solve it. I'll just say that perhaps it has something to do with objectivity and subjectivity.

Speaking of absolute truths, Douglas Adams said something that I think at least comes the closest. It's a tautology which says, "Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again."

On the subject of education, I don't know enough about the philosophy of it to fully understand it and make an argument. I'll leave that to Tinne or Kernos.

[Wolfwalker]

Science allows for the reality of the machines you're reading this on and much of what is around you as you are readuing this no doubt. Science has much to say for those with ears to listen. Ethics dictate what is or is not considered acceptable, tolerable or tasteful in respect of what you say in response to what is posted here. The interface between Science and Ethics is a fundamental reality, same as the ethical realities that apply if I am meting you face to face in person, and we interact or if we do not , for whatever reason, interact with one another. Life is a reality you may not like, but your interraction with it is governed by your personal ethics, like it or not. Deal with it.
bb, /|\ Peter

[Azrienoch]

Sorry, I'm just not sure who that was intended for, but I agree with it.

[Nobilisanguis]

Excuse me for interrupting, but is Cernnunos pronounced "kernnunos" or "Sernnunos"? The same same with Celtic, is it pronounced "Keltic" or "Seltic"?

[Dair Ciúin]

Excuse me for interrupting, but is Cernnunos pronounced "kernnunos" or "Sernnunos"? The same same with Celtic, is it pronounced "Keltic" or "Seltic"?

I use the following, but exact pronunceation does seem to vary.

Cernunnos (ker-noo-nos)

Celtic (kel-tic)

Cerridwen (kerr-ed-wen)

[Nobilisanguis]

That's what I thought, I've heard it pronounced mostly "Seltic" but in a movie it was "Keltic"
Ty
Responding to Wolfwalker's post; I think ethics are called for to make better science. If you're trapped on a desert island, it's good manners to share your food, but the better science comes when the people you shared with survive

[Dryadia2]

I use the following, but exact pronunceation does seem to vary.

Cernunnos (ker-noo-nos)

Celtic (kel-tic)

Cerridwen (kerr-ed-wen)

Perfect pronunciation Ithilas! I couldn't even hear your accent! (I bet you do have a sexy accent tho!) LOL

Peace and Blessings,
/|\

[Tinne]

greetings,
very sleepy so sorry for bullett points.
Education=privallige
People judge on education oppertunities arise if you are educated.
Educated people often poke fun at builders and checkout persons. Manual labour is not recognised unless it has to do with 'educated trastes' ie people seem to think druids built henges when in fact it was ordinary farmers.
Education at present favours the interlect . what about the body? Does it not tell us things all the time, keep us alive while interlectuals have the habit of topping themselves.
The interlect often gets in the way ,causeing us to attempt to rationalise things or find conclusssions that don't exist.
sorry i know i'm making huge generalisations.
Knowledge is power the body is power thats why in this patriarcheal times womens bodies are the subject of conflict.
Do we need education i cannot play a radio but most my musical freinds pick up an instrument and pick ,pluck or bang a tune they feel with their fingers and ears. artist i know see things and capture them like photos without any formal training.
so maybe there is a case for going directly to the source.
sorry it's all bitty but i'm knackered.
floral tributes
tinne

[Wolfwalker]

I se your point Tinne, but consider how the intellectual elitists fare when there is no one to build their house, no garbage collectors to remove the detrius of their wasteful lifestyle, no street cleaner to keep their curbs and drains from blocking with rubbish, or how many of them would fare when they required the services of plumbers, mechanics and furnace repair people. It's pathetic that they look down their noses on "working class" when they do not in too many cases know what it truly is to work for their daily bread. Sad.
bb, /|\, Peter
Just my two coppers' worth

[Tinne]

greetings,
thanks WW.
So I would question the Ethics of an educated elite, iwould be suspicious that it would be biased towards maintaining a status quo.
this includes all the educated socialists who imo hark back to the old rational recreactionist of the victorian era. I'm a culture of the people person as oppossed to a culture for a people.
From the hollowe hills.

[Tinne]

greetings again.
As incarnations who identify with druids (how pc is that!!!) Can we allow a formal value system to be adopted and dissseminated i would say no.
it seems to go against the fluidity that resonates with druidry. druidry empowers the individual to make up their own mind and it recognises that the majority can sometimes be wrong. i think we as people have our own values and the fact they cannot be quantified using rational methords is imo a good thing.
peace into power into peace
tinne.

[EarthWard]

Hiya,
In reverse I don't really see how being a street cleaner or check out person equals to not being smart. Sometimes economic pressures prevents one from taking a job that might reflect their true intellect. I would like to think that is the case with me. From what I gathered from Alferians' post is that a Druid's greatest sin (using the word loosely of course) would be to stop thinking.
I can agree that the Druid tradition as a whole can not adopt formal value systems, but sometimes value systems adopt us in a Druid tradition. Like King Arthur and his noble knights. There's a certain code of honor that I can feel when reflecting upon them and their deeds. A mythology of the heart for me.

[Wolfwalker]

In a slightly different way, that was what I was saying EW; that intelect is not equal to employment status. Some of the most inventive and insightful people I have met have ben elders who have had very little formal education and been carpenters, sailors, and self or apprentice taught artisans.
Peter

[Tinne]

Greetings,
I think we would be damned if we did have an ethical policy and damned if we didn't. I cannot see it being able to accomidate the obods inclusive policy. It is through obod i get to comunicate with people of different ethical and moral stand points to suggest a uniformity to the obod is daft ,it is in it's early teens and will do everything to celebrate its individuality.
Laying in leaves,
tinne