Is there such thing as ethical spell casting?
I repeatedly read people wrote about how they do not want to mess with other people's free will (ie. love spell) and I found this to be in conflict with their (our) daily behaviours. We persuade, seduce, entice people daily to bend and fulfill our desires by psychological means, consciously or unconsciously. If seen from this particular perspective, I honestly see nothing wrong with bend over/coercive spell for example (IMG:style_emoticons/default/8.gif)

Well I don't think messing with anyone's free will is the problem. I think the problem most people have is messing with someone's free will through means of 'enchantments'..Basically they want to mess with peoples heads on their own so they don't feel guilty. Like if a guy performed a ritual to get laid, and he does, but later feels "Holy shit, what did I do", as oppose to her having a few drinks, him getting laid, and thinking it was mutual, so it's fine..Get what I'm trying to say? IMO since most of the world is christian (Or christian-like) they think that if they intervene with someone's will through means of enchantment that there are no means of going back, as oppose to let's doing something wrong without 'enchantments' were in like religions like catholicism you can repent.

This post has been edited by SangueDiNapoli: Mar 9 2006, 01:23 AM

Spells cast on one's self would hardly be unethical for the most part (of course, that excludes the glamours and whatnot).

I think the main difference is that an enchantment causes you to have power over someone, while physical action still leaves the other person choice. Plus it removes the necessity for actually interacting with the person in their normal state - making things "easier" for you, which is not necessarily a good thing in a cosmic-karmic sense.

There's some "complex physical actions" we can do which grant us power over the other person, willingly or not, conscious or subconsciously:

- Someone put a gun on your head (IMG:style_emoticons/default/13.gif)

- If "A" has more money, fame, connections, looks, character and personality than "B'. Here "B" still has a choice and free will but it is usually biased based on the weight of personal choices/influences "A" has expend on "B".

- Mind games, PsyOp type of operations, manipulation of the superficials, mixtures of perspectives, truth and lies. This may or may not include money, fame and other wordly power as above. Look at influencial persons in the past that has been the Head of States, Kings, Advertisers, Entreprenuers, Philosophers, Womanizers like Cassanova and Don Juan etc. They all work on their target's subconsicous - using the illusions of the logic and conscious. Like playing a human chess, they (or we!) can direct people's actions and thoughts through strategy, tactics, subtle gestures and boldness.

We manipulate and deceive all the time since our childhood and I'm sure you've heard this line from somewhere else and can elaborate this by yourself (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

People live in their own world... their own illusions of what they perceive from the "real" world... and they tend to be influenced and directed (controlled) by the person who can understand AND reflect "their world" ie. understanding how they think, taste, habits and preferrences.

When we create a strong rapport with the target, they will also think like us - like a mirror, thinking we are just like them and naturally will submit to our will, whether we orchestrate it or not - In esoteric perspective: understand (raise above) their vibrations, sync it into our own and we can manipulate it according to our will. It is not much difference than spell casting isn't it? Its just a matter of what path and means you want to do to achieve what you desire.

All of the examples you cite, even the gun to the head one, still leave them options.

If someone put a gun to my head, and told me to kill someone else, I'd tell them to shoot me.

If "A" tried to manipulate me, it would be on my terms, not their's. I don't like/care for money or fame or power. I honestly don't want them.

And the "psyops" manipulation is what I'm actually best at, so that doesn't work on me - I tend to identify it and then look into what is ACTUALLY going on.

Enchantments however, WILL make them do what you want. In any example you bring up that does not involve magic, there will be those who choose not to do what you want them to, simply based on their own past, willpower, wants, etc. Their choice might not be as "happy" as the choice you want them to make, but they might make it anyway. Enchantments don't give options.

Yes correct Zahagiel. There is no guarantee of success in life, whether mundane or magical, it depends on various factors that is often beyond our control and influence. So at this point I am in disagreement with your opinion saying that enchantments don't give options for the reasons above. We can manipulate, seduce, or influence ourself, our environment within promixity depending on our skills and knowledge, but sometimes there still will be someone or something higher standing in our way.

Well this is purely based on my understanding of enchantments, which might easily be flawed.

A non-directed enchantment will bring someone to do what you want, while a directed enchantment causes a specific someone to act how you want, right?

I'm perfectly open to being wrong there - I regularly use glamours to influence people's perceptions or actions, but their success depends entirely on the subject's focus and will.

I agree completely. There are so many books out there along the lines of winning friends and influncing people. I do not see karmic difference between that, and magic that accomplishes the same goal.

And ye harm none do what thou wilt. <Pause to hug a tree> But if ye piss me off thou I wilt do. <Pause to urinate on a tree> You are right. People will try to enchant you with words.
I lose no sleep over going after what I want though any means as long as it fits my self code of honor.

As much as I am looking for an arguement here in fight club I find none here.

Hmm, interesting theory. But I think it's more complicated than that. Seeing as casting a spell to get someone to fall madly in love with you using magick versus seducing them or manipulating them. In the latter, you aren't really in conflict with thier free will, as they could say no at anytime. They just don't choose to do so. It's like a used car salesman trying to sell you a lemon, he tries to make you believe you "need" the car and you won't survive without it. A person who could see the wool being pulled over thier eyes would say "F@CK YOU!!" , whilst other people might just buy the car because the guy is so pushy and coercing them to do so. The salesman isn't taking away your free will he's just trying to con you out of your cash. It's all about the strength of will in that one. The former is where you haven't even the slightest clue someone is performing magick against you and you just end up doing something you wouldn't normally do. I guess it boils down to having the choice to say no.

Yes Angalor, the person can say no and not do the coercive spell. It really depends on reasons and considerations such as personal values and beliefs + possible consequences in comparison to how much does the person wants to get what he/she wants + degrees of risk management they're willing to commit themself to (IMG:style_emoticons/default/13.gif) Nevertheless, people will still cheat lie manipulate and even commit murder if their desire is strong enough. However, I havent seen a good rates of success with these coercive spells. IMO, they tend to only work with depresive, and low self esteem targets (people with weak shields).

You all have heard the description, he/she could sell a lawn mower to an Eskimo? Great sales people use nothing more than emotional and intellectual manipulation to get you to buy. Is it wrong, IMO, no. The buyer still has free will.

This post has been edited by Sojrn: May 7 2006, 02:41 PM

Other than healing I doubt it. Of course there are those who think that teaching others a lesson about their behavior makes this ok. However, that sound more like arrogance than ethics.

Agreed 100% Kinjo

I think everyone has their own superstisions, and so on. But I think that free will is free will and whether you bend it with spell casting or headgames minus the spell casting, it's still manipulitive your still using a power in your mind or in a spell you cast,

IMO, anything & everything you do is going to come back and bite you in the behind, no matter what. good or bad

I came up with a example, that I believe is relivant to this & my belief

So take Criss Angel for example, and his mind powers(to get into the mind of others) well say he decides to use it to bend "Martia" to his will, either to get her to jump off a bridge , run in traffic , be his friend , talk to him , kiss him so on so fourth, something she generally wouldn't do. So he gets in her mind to get her to bend to his will, and she does. It still effects her free will, to an extent, it manipulates her.

Now for instance, say Candy looooves Adam, Candy decides to bend her to his will with a love spell, Adam has never even spoke to Candy let alone shown a love intrest, but with the spell, she just manipulated him into taking up a love intrest. She just bent him to her will.

So thats what I meant in my previous post, (IMG:style_emoticons/default/angel.gif)

I feel ittsy bitsy smart, just a little. But thats how I percive it.

I believe in love spells, I think they are fine, I believe in bending someone to your will, as long as you don't make it habitual/not on a daily basis. I think that before you cast a love spell you ought to identify the feeling of love, and ensure it's not a crush or a puppy love feeling, & when making someone agree to you make sure it's because it's something you can't live without.

If the universe truely only contains so much energy (though incomprehenisble that may be) and energy can not be created or destroyed then it can only be modified and recollibrated to differing phases of matter. Drawing down from this concept of a limmited amount energy contained within a bubble of existance we call our universe, we live within the confines of what amounts to an unbelievably vast snow globe whose liquid and snow flakes affects both macro and micro levels. And by living within this universe we interact with it in our current state of matter. Thus exerting any amount of change in one's environment creates a ripple affect in which energy becomes displaced, (as if we each shake this univseral snow globe with each action we take). While the actual impact one is capable of generating may be limmited to only affecting their direct environment it still displaces energy. If this is true than any action, mundane, or magickal causes energy to be displaced. This leads to a ripple affect that can reach outside one's own environment and effect the universe beyond them. In other words the butterfly affect, or chaos theory.

The fact that "as above so below" seems to be a reoccuring theme in our apperently dualistic reallity tells me that any action we take, no matter how subtle, carries its own momentum that affects our surroundings. If every action carries its own equal and opposite reaction then even something that works on a level subtle as cerimonial magick can generate profound changes. But the catch is that no matter what action one takes, regardless if one's intentions of good or ill, what they do will produce a reaction. Sense, to me, "good" and "evil" are illogical concepts, we do not do good or evil things. We do responsible and irresponsible things. For each action, our intentions may be good or evil but the action may be still be a responible one (thought out and planned) or irresponsible (impulsive and reckless). "Good or evil" really have no barring on how well thought out or reckless our actions may or may not be. Our intentions/motives may need to be catagorically "moral" to justify the actions we take but the affects of the actions we take are not good or bad and anything we do, no matter how minute, can have both "good" and "bad" consequences.

So the trick is to use magick responsibly and accepting of the notion that all action carries its own equal and opposite reaction. Knowing this we also know that what ever we do magickally might do good for us or others but if so it will generate negative results somewhere else in the universe (there is only so much energy therefore all action displaces energy such that where we add/enhance in our enviroments we draw energy from somewhere else and that source might be affected negatively and visa versa.)

And through all my stammering I think my main point is that unethical magick is not magick that is done through good or bad intentions but magick done irresponsibly, without regard for consequences or out of pure, reckless, impuslive, emotional desires and motives.

Morality is subjective. Ethics are nothing more than an agreed upon set of societal norms. They are important to maintain a functioning society, but magick really isn't a society. It's more of and esoteric system. Follow your own moral compass. Karma is an illusion. In reality, with magick, you get what you pay for. How many times have you heard of someone doing a love spell then realizing "oh my gods, it worked, now she won't leave me alone. this sucks!". Irresponsible actions will always come back to bite the practioner.