What the Rede really says.
The Wiccan Rede, the primary tenet of the Wiccan faith, is eight words long.
It’s usually “An it harm none, do as you will,� or some slight
variation in word choice thereof. It can be found as part of “The Rede of
the Wiccae� by Adrianna Porter and also in a variation in “The
Witches’ Creed� by Doreen Valiente. The Wiccan Rede is often
confused with these two longer pieces, but it is much simpler a statement.
It’s simplicity sometimes creates a problem. Some believe that the eight-
word statement can be further shortened to a two-word commandment, â
€œharm none.â€� The Rede is clearly not a commandment. In fact, many
Wiccans take it as a matter of pride that we have a positive ethic rather than
a prohibitive one, such as the “Ten Commandments,� where the vast
majority of those commandments are “thou shalt not� statements.
Shortening The Wiccan Rede has the same effect as oversimplifying just
about anything. The oversimplification loses the full meaning and the
nuances. If I said to you, as you were walking into my house on a rainy day, â
€œIf your feet are clean, you can leave your shoes on,â€� what would you
do? Most people would check their shoes for mud and determine an action
from there. If you interpreted my statement as simply “clean feet,�
you’re left with something different. Either I see your feet and I was
remarking how clean they are or I was issuing a command. The command is
close in nature to the actual statement but it’s obviously not right on the
mark. The shortened command eliminates your ability to chose your action
based on the cleanliness of your shoes.
The Wiccan Rede needs the clarity of the full statement. “An it harm
none, do what you will.� If it doesn’t cause harm then do what you
want. Do what you want as long as you aren’t hurting anyone. Take that
a step further—if it’s going to hurt someone, you had better consider
your actions. What? That’s right. Not just flat out “don’t do it,â
€� though that might be the correct conclusion in some cases. Weigh your
actions. Give them thought. Take the best possible course, and be sure youâ
€™re willing to accept the consequences of your actions.
For example, I decide to go for a walk in the park—not much in the way of
morality to consider. I have a glass of wine with diner, no problem. I decide to
get ripped at a club. That should give me a moment’s pause. Am I
somewhere safe? Do I have a safe way home? Do I have to work in the
morning? If we answer yes, yes, and no, and there are no other
considerations (like am I spending my rent money, are my kids home alone,
or have I done this twice this week already) then why not? I think I might like
to try cocaine—STOP! Can it kill me? YES. Aside from the many other
possible bad things that could happen, that alone should say don’t do it.
That action has the potential to cause serious harm and should not be taken.
What about shooting someone who’s broken into your house? There are
people who might chose not to do so even if capable, placing perceived â
€œrightâ€� action above protecting themselves. Others would see this as a
necessary harm and be willing to take the consequences of their actions,
should there be consequences, karmic or legal. In general, the law of the land
recognizes your right to protect yourself from danger, especially in your
home. The same law carries severe penalties for murder, also the killing of
another. Even the legal system makes a distinction between an action taken
for different reasons. If you believe that “harm none� is the only
standard you would be forced to allow someone to hurt you and those you love
if you were to hold strictly to your principles in the above situation.
Certainly, if the Rede boils down to “harm none� we couldn’t eat.
We wouldn’t be consigned to vegetarianism; we couldn’t eat at all.
Eating a plant certainly harms that plant. The action kills it, or at least part of
it. And what about microorganisms like bacteria? Is it preferable to die from
an infection rather than cause harm? How about disciplining your children, or
even criminals? Certainly a child is unhappy when disciplined for a wrong
action, he or she may even cry--isn’t that harm? Restricting the freedom
of a criminal is most decidedly harm, I confess I wouldn’t want to spend
any time in jail myself. And how about simply breaking up with a boyfriend or
girlfriend when the relationship doesn’t work out? There are almost
always hurt feelings in such a situation. The fact is, if we must do no harm
then we can’t possibly live. These actions all must be weighed against a
greater outcome, not simply not taken because on face value they cause some
harm.
Should we strive to do no harm? Certainly, that’s desirable. Any moral,
ethical person will chose the best possible action—the one that causes least
harm--in every situation to the best of his or her ability. Should we beat
ourselves up and feel guilty for living, thriving, and pursuing happiness?
Absolutely not. As Wiccans, we have the obligation to weigh our actions, not
to live in a hermetically sealed bubble for fear of causing harm. We have the
freedom of choice, not the burden of commandments.
