Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!mcnc!unc!tim
From: tim@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: rights w/o restrictions?
Message-ID: <5698@unc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Aug-83 14:32:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.5698
Posted: Fri Aug 12 14:32:20 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Aug-83 20:56:29 EDT
References: umcp-cs.1610
Lines: 38


            Tim Maroney asks for comments on Thelemic
        morality.  I wonder how he thinks rights can exist or
        be advocated without the existence/advocacy of
        restrictions (taboos, if you will).  Seems to me that
        to say humans have a right to (example) life, liberty
        and pursuit of happiness means that others are
        *required* to (at least) not-interfere with their
        life, liberty, etc.

    It is of course true that there are de facto taboos in Thelemic
morality.  Wanton killing is the most obvious example.  However, they
are not stated as restrictions.  Thelemism does not derive its
morality from the concept of "rights", but from the concepts of Will,
Restriction, and Love.  An action is "wrong" if it is a Restriction of
another's Will (or one's own) without consent.  Murdering someone is
wrong because it is a Restriction of their Will, or, if you prefer, a
destruction of their liberty.

    The wrong is in creating the restriction, not in violating some
restriction (such as a law).  To introduce explicit taboos would be to
undermine the entire system, since this would place restriction in an
exalted position rather than recognizing it as the source of "wrong".
The de facto taboos are readily derivable from the concepts of Will,
Restriction, and Love, and there is thus no reason to risk
deliberately stating them.

    Finally, I don't think you have grasped the idea of Will.  Will is
that which does not conflict with the Will of others BY DEFINITION.
Thus, a person who does only the Will never imposes Restrictions on the
Will of others unless it is their Will to accept the Restriction.
The idea of taboos just doesn't fit into a Will-oriented system.

___________
Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill