Johnny Cash wrote a song about an inmate whose crime was to kill a person just to see someone die. Cash explained that he wanted to portray the person as doing the most evil thing possible. The sad fact is that there are thrill-killers who are little different than the man in the song. Serial killers and street gangsters come to mind. There are also bizarre cases such as Leopold and Loeb who murdered as part of a supposed philosophical experiment.
Aleister Crowley and several other esoterocists had advised forays into wrongdoing under certain circumstances. Some teach it as a means to throw off the old concept of right and wrong, or to separate themselves from an old moral code or religion. Several of them make convincing arguments. However, when examined in the light of simple, unvarnished reason, such advice is seen as horribly flawed. It either promotes a rebellious attitude or provides justification to those who have criminal impulses. For instance, telling the person with larcenous tendencies that stealing would promote his spirituality is like handing a loaded pistol to someone with suicidal tendencies.
By the time we are eight years old, we know enough of right and wrong. We know what things are wrong and why they are wrong. Most wrongs do someone harm of one sort or another. It may be physical harm or harm to their property. The wrong may deprive them of some good or cause them distress. Whatever the result, we know that things that hurt others are wrong. That being the case, how can a search for spiritual growth or a religious experience justify injuring innocent parties?
There are rare occasions when harm is necessary. One is the defense of another person and another is action against the enemy in time of war. There are also self-defense and self-preservation. These are all extreme circumstances.
What lessons would wrongdoing bring? As someone who had done his share of mischief in his younger days, only one thing comes to light. The lessons are all reasons why not to do wrong.
Doing wrong just to prove a point is a dangerous thing. It means crossing a line. Once crossed, it is easier to cross it again especially there are no unpleasant consequences. Even if one is not caught, he might feel regret for harm he did to someone else. Guilt is another thing, not to mention the fear that one may eventually get caught. There are people who spend many years “looking over their shoulders” in the aftermath of an otherwise successful crime.
And what if one does not get caught, either by the authorities, those who are wronged, or his own paranoia, guilt and regret? He may very well try it again, or take a chance on doing some other unfortunate act. Maybe it is the feeling of impunity or the thrill of doing it just for “kicks.” A weird thing about persistent wrongdoing is that the longer you get away with it, the worse it will come back on you later. For instance, a fellow who gets caught later than sooner may face a larger penalty. This might not be true all the time, but it happens often enough to be noteworthy.
I had done my share of wrong back in the bad old days. The whole experience is why I can tell the difference between right and wrong. More important, this is real right and wrong as opposed to a set of theological or philosophical or even societal right and wrong.
For someone to intentionally do wrong so as the gain the experience is unproductive. There is no lesson to learn by that approach. My best advice is that if you never did it before, don’t start doing it now. And if you are doing it now, stop!
There is another level of right and wrong that involves higher principles. It is a placed from which we can ask questions that go beyond the usual good and bad. We ask if something normally good can be bad, or if something normally wrong can be right. For instance, is one being kind if his actions enable another to continue an addiction? Is there a time when the right thing is the thing that seems meanest? Can love and kindness kill? Or might we say that there might be a time when the truly kind thing is the mean thing?
I have experienced this dealing with people in the throes of addiction and other self-destructive patterns. The usual kind thing often enables them to continue their wrongful actions. These will eventually lead to their demise if left unchecked. The thing that saves them, or at least slows the process of addiction, is to refuse them what they want. Perhaps letting them suffer without our help will be the thing that motivates them to seek help. At the very least, it limits the victims by one. The person who refuses to help an addict feed his behavior is not another victim of the addict’s illness.
Things get very tricky when it comes to love. For instance, is there a time when the right thing is to cheat on one’s committed relationship? In a monogamous relationship, is such a thing ever justified? There are as many answers to this as there are attitudes toward committed relationships. Each must find his own way. To be fair, each already knows what rules apply to his or her own relationship. Our modern times have added new factors to some relationships. Along with traditional commitments, we come across such things as open marriages and swinging. I believe we each know down inside which of these are right for oneself and which are not.
Then there is the problem of sex as a bargaining chip. If one spouse refuses the other sex, whose fault is it if he or she decides to find satisfaction elsewhere? There would be no cheating if there was no use of sex as a weapon. Whatever blame can go to the offending spouse, the plain fact it is that the one withholding sex who started things rolling. Without that provocation, cheating would have been unlikely. There is also the problem of whether the other spouse is seeking sex out of need or because he feels he can get away with it under these circumstances. On the other hand, can a spouse justify cheating if the sex is not being refused by choice, but the other spouse is sick and cannot provide?
I mention these things because they illustrate how issues of right and wrong can be very complex. There is no one answer that fits everyone. Each must use his own discretion to make the choices that are right for him. That can get very tricky when it involves relationships. (My goal here is not to promote a specific morality, but to look at some of the factors that make moral decisions difficult.)
Monotheists tend to think that wrongs require some kind of compensation. They incur a spiritual debt, according to their doctrines. One version of their favorite prayer reads “..forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors…” Christianity implies that the wrongdoer must buy off guilt through some kind of penance. As they regard all wrongs as spiritual offenses, the monotheists feel that lapses in behavior incur a spiritual debt. Perhaps it is a divine fine. It certainly gives a new twist to the phrase “sin tax.”
Heathenism does not regard wrongdoing as a spiritual offense. The idea of debt or owing a God is as alien to us as the twenty-seventh asteroid southeast of the Planet Pluto. There are wrongs that might require making amends to the victim. One may need to make financial restitution or take some other action to right the wrong. However, most wrongs do not incur that kind of responsibility. There are many cases where amends are not in order. In a few, amends seem nice, but they would be impractical. We cannot go on a penitent mission of making amends for every ill deed and unkind word. The only necessary thing to redress wrongdoing is to stop doing it.
I think of a couple of cases involving persons who had fooled around with their siblings’ spouse. The mischief stopped, the affair ended and all was well again. To confess or offer amends would cause more harm. The siblings had no idea that it happened and the spouses had cleaned up their acts. A similar case was a fellow who diddled around with his wife’s best friend a few times. The dalliance ended and things went back to normal. Had the wife not known, nothing would have come of it. Instead the man felt guilty and told her everything. He also ratted out her friend. You can imagine the trouble that came of it. His wife would have been happier had she not known of it.
Another case was a fellow who had pulled a few crimes. He felt guilty and decided to turn himself in. Fortunately, he mentioned his plan to someone who was wiser. The friend told him that he had a responsibility to his family first. There was no need to turn himself in, as nobody else was blamed for the wrong. Assuaging his guilt that way would deprive his children of a father and his family of an income.
It all comes down to the main thing: stop doing the wrong. The Heathen view is that wrongdoing does not incur a burden of debt or a need for penance. Even if a person wants to repair the damage, he might not be able to do it without hurting someone else. Amends might be justified in a few cases, but even then, they are no good if they hurt someone else. The main thing is to stop the wrongdoing. Penance is not our way. Positive change is the Heathen way.