Most Wiccans recognize two related moral codes – the Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law.
The Rede states “As it harms none, do what you will.” In simple terms this means “do what you like as long as no one gets hurt, including yourself.”
The Threefold Law states that whatever energy one puts forth (in words, thoughts, and/or actions) will be returned after being multiplied by three.
The concept behind the Rede is not unique to Wicca. In fact, every other major religion teaches a similar ethic of reciprocity.
There are two reasons the Rede feels like truth to me. First, it guides one toward living a sacred life. If we view ourselves and all we encounter as sacred, we’re more likely to use the reverence that results as a basis for the decisions we make (decisions that would likely involve ”harming none.”). Second, it’s based on the universal law of cause and effect (simply put, we reap what we sow). We can see evidence of this law all around us.
The Threefold Law does not resound as truth however. First, I see it as an unnecessary over-elaboration of the Rede. Second, in the words of attorney, activist, and Wiccan author Phyllis Curott,
“[The Threefold Law is] not ethics, [it]’s expediency. [It's a] remnant of Biblical patriarchal thinking. It’s a rule based on punishment and fear. What it says is, if I do something wrong, I will be punished, and therefore I will behave. Expediency, self-interest, and this is the weak cousin of an ethical norm. It’s bad morality and it’s not the basis upon which we should conduct ourselves and our lives and our spiritual practices.”
(Expediency means basing current action strictly on future/desired outcome.)
I understand and accept that how I experience life is a direct reflection of the choices I make – I don’t need the Threefold Law hovering over my head to remind me. Also, when I do good I endeavor to do so based on genuine desire -not because I expect to receive a triple bonus of good in return.
It’s important for adherents of all religions to use discernment and to constantly ask questions. Digesting everything one reads or is told without first passing it through these filters is inconsistent with the value we as Wiccans place on personal responsibility.
I struggled with this, till it was explained to me that the three-fold law wasn’t meant to be taken literally, like a Fundamental Christian would see it. it’s more like a basic idea. Does that make any sense?
kip,
Thanks for visiting and sharing your perspective!
To me it’s not really an issue of taking the Threefold Law literally or otherwise – it’s about what I see as an unnecessary elaboration of the Rede based on patriarchal religious teachings.
The Threefold Law uses fear as a way to keep people in line, like the Abrahamic religions do. I feel this influence is inappropriate because fear doesn’t empower one to live a sacred life (which is, in my opinion, the goal of the Wicca).
I think the problem with religion in general is that sometimes people get to thinking that without it, people are without conviction as to what the difference between right and wrong is. I know that it wouldn’t matter whether I was Wiccan or athiest, I would still hold the exact same code of morals and sense of fairness.
When I recently yead Curott’s Witchcrafting, the ideas you talked about definitely resonated with me. The idea that you should not do something bad just because “the rede says so” rather than following your own personal compass of what is good and what isn’t good is very suspect.
I think that you don’t need to be religious to have a moral compass for ethics. What’s of concern for me is that some people argue that politicians who aren’t religious are sailing without a compass, so to speak, and therefore when it comes to making decisions on issues with high ethical and moral implications they are somehow not as ‘qualified’ because they don’t pray or go to church.
I think the idea of “what goes around comes around” or even karma uses fear to get people to behave. Harming none is a more sound base for behaviour and it shouldn’t be restricted to those of religious backgrounds, be it patriachal, pagan or otherwise.
…I don’t think I’ve been very coherent!
Thanks for visiting me and sharing your thoughts too
You have been coherent! And I agree with you.
The idea that the religious have a monopoly on morality is silly. One only need watch the evening news to see examples of why this isn’t true.
I think you’re right. Also, if everyone just lived by the Rede, the world would be a much better place.
Wouldn’t that be incredible kip?!
Though living by the Rede wouldn’t solve every moral dilemma, it sure would make things like unjust wars, lying politicians, and violent crimes a thing of the past. What a great world that would be to live in.
I thought I’d go through some of your archives.
On this count, I think I’m inclined to respectfully disagree with you and Ms. Currott. I think it’s an important part of ethics in that it expresses why ethical considerations are so important: our actions have more effects than we might initially realize, and saying “Well, I didn’t know that was going to happen and I didn’t mean it to!” doesn’t always cut it.
I do think it’s unfortunate that most people think of the Threefold Law in terms of “I’ll get clobbered three times if I do something bad.” In reality, I’m convinced that originally, it wasn’t even meant to suggest that “what comes back” always comes back directly to you and may affect others in similar ways. Indeed, I think that the way many people think of it solely in terms of what will come back to them personally is horribly selfish.
Granted, I personally like to think about all this in terms of Wyrd rather than the more common “Threefold Law” anyway. But I do think that a more nuanced and careful consideration of the latter does tend to lead to the same place as the former.
Jarred,
“I think it’s an important part of ethics in that it expresses why ethical considerations are so important: our actions have more effects than we might initially realize…”
I agree. And thanks to your explanation, I’m also starting to understand what kip may have been getting at in her response:
“[I]t was explained to me that the three-fold law wasn’t meant to be taken literally…”
So, though I still think literal interpretation of the Threefold Law can be likened to “being good so the Mother Superior doesn’t wrack your knuckles,” I see how it does have some value especially as it relates to helping us consider the ripple effects our actions can have.
Thanks for your contribution.
You’re most welcome, Jerome. I enjoy a good discussion on ethics, as it’s a topic I’m strongly and passionately interested in. In fact, one of my goals is to eventually offer a “class” in Pagan ethics in my local community.
Fantastic idea Jarred! Sounds like a great way to contribute.
I believe this to be so true….. and with believing wish we should all believe in something…….. makes me a much better guilt ridden person………………..
This is very interesting! Wow, I’m glad I found your blog. Anyway…my point. Ah, yes. The Three-fold Law. Instead of seeing it as “If you’re bad, you’ll get punished,” I see it as if you send out X energy into the universe, it will indeed come back to you… and threefold may not mean you get punished three times, or the energy comes back to you three times as strong… It may mean it comes back to influence us in ways we simply couldn’t predict… So we need to be careful. Very very careful. Instead of operating out of fear, we need to operate out of respect…
“Instead of operating out of fear, we need to operate out of respect…”
I’m so on board with you – I feel this sentence captures the true essence of both the Rede and the Threefold Law.
Interesting post. I don’t think I agree with the idea that the law of three is fear and punishment based, though. I see it more as a bit of wisdom about the way personal energy works. To me, a “punishment” is an arbitrary penalty for breaking a rule imposed by an authority. Christianity has a lot of those things: something is forbidden (we’re not told why), and God will condemn you if you go ahead and do it anyway.
There’s nothing like that involved in the law of three. Rather, it just reminds us that the intentions and energies that we approach the world with become amplified and attached to us as we travel through life. It means we attract to ourselves the sort of things we focus our energies on. I don’t find that frightening, although it can be thought-provoking and a cause for self-examination and reflection.
The law of three complements the rede, because the rede doesn’t tell us what will happen if we act a certain way, it only directs us to know our own will and to avoid doing harm.
Blessings, Tom
Starweaver,
Thanks for visiting and commenting!
“Rather, it just reminds us that the intentions and energies that we approach the world with become amplified and attached to us as we travel through life.”
I have difficulty believing that energy is amplified and returned under the principle of the Threefold Law. We know that energy can be neither created nor destroyed – it can only change form. Granted, if someone makes a habit of doing something (good or ill) they could certainly experience the cumulative result of these actions – but the result will always have the same ratio as the action. One cannot equal three…
Several months have passed since I wrote this, and as I re-read the post and the thoughtful, intelligent comments all have made, I realize how each of our truths are different facets of an elaborate gem.
I’m also reminded where one of my growth opportunities lay – that is, in taking things too literally. Echoing the eloquent statement by Starweaver above, I’m now leaning toward the belief that rather than a literal statement the Threefold Law is a reminder “[That] we attract to ourselves the sort of things we focus our energies on.”
That feels like truth to me…