Thelemic Morality
Do what thou willt shall be the whole of the Law.
Given the system of Will and the essential moral relativism it seems to indicate, it may be asked how it is possible to live a moral and ethical life in such a world.
The answer is quite simple. Thelema is not so much a relativistic religion as it is a perspectivist religion. The distinction is vitally important. Relativism is a form of nihilism. A relativist believes there are no useful conditions of morality whatsoever. By contrast, a perspectivist believes there are legitimate conditions for morality, but that morality is determined by the outlook of the person. Thus, a perspectivist allows the possibility that a person can be immoral, though only in terms of their moral standard being illegitimate in the light of their particular circumstances. A relativist does not allow such a consideration--he will believe that any action, no matter what it is, has an equal value to any other action in any circumstance.
There are two main libri on Thelemic morality. One is named Liber Librae sub figura XXX, or "The Book of the Balance". The other is known as Liber OZ, and because it is shorter than The Book of the Balance I will include it here with general remarks.
"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world." AL. II. 2
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." --AL. I. 40
"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." --AL. I. 42-3
"Every man and every woman is a star." --AL. I. 3
There is no god but man.
1. Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." --AL. II. 58
"Love is the Law, Love under Will." --AL. I. 57
© O.T.O.
It will be noticed that the most common word here is "will". Again, Will is not so much desire as it is spiritual nature. Thus, Liber OZ advocates a simple code of conduct. If it is within your True Will, it is moral.
Analysis
"There is no god but man". "I am alone, there is no god where I am". "No god", or "There is no god" is suggested by Crowley (The Vision and the Voice) to mean that God is in all things, and not independent. Rather than an objective and impersonal entity, God may be seen as immanent in the world. Man is the building block of universal consciousness, which may be thought of as God--far from meaning that God does not exist, the phrase "There is no god but man" means that man is himself a logos for the expression of the divine will, in fact he is the divine will.
Since the most common word in the document is "Will", and "Will" means destiny (you cannot escape your will, denying it means denying yourself, effectively cancelling your own existence), this document is not a defense of free will and whim. Note the first line--"man has the right to live by his own law". This is not a defense of anarchism, because implicit in this line is "man has no right to live by no law".
According to The Book of the Law, "Love is the law". So how can man live by his own law, if the law is "love" and therefore appointed, not chosen? It gets back to Qabalah--love and will are two sides of the same coin. The will unites the man with all else, and this is an act of love. At root, will is all that a man is or may be. This further removes personal choice when it comes to Thelemic morality, because the only "good" thing is the will, and any act of the will. Love of necessity will be the way in which this will is expressed--any act therefore which is not implicitly expressing itself through love is not an act of will, and is not moral.
"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights; 'The slaves shall serve'". The placement of this quote, "The slaves shall serve", from The Book of the Law is interesting. Who are the slaves? Whom--or what--do the slaves serve? It seems that these "rights" are things in accordance with our wills. We have the "right" to kill such people--it would be a part of our will. This illustrates the irrepressiveness of the will. Any act against the will is going to be struck down by it. Nobody can oppose another person who is acting in accordance with their will, it would be like trying to stop a freight train with your body. However, this implies that you can't go out and kill someone because you percieve them to be violating your will--and I suspect that "kill" is not literal in any case, given the placement of the quote. For as a part of our will, to "kill" is here a necessary act, not a matter of free will. It cannot be another man's will to thwart mine. Therefore it is not his right. Slaves have no rights. The slave is therefore a person who acts against his will. It is thus the slave who is killed if he seeks to thwart these rights--if all wills are complimentary, "to kill" here couild simply mean corrective action, a theory than any attempt to thwart another's will is necessarily going to fail, and there will be natural repercussions for this act, so that the slave is no longer a slave (because he is pushed back into his own will's "orbit")--the slave is thus killed.
Love is the law, love under will.
Do what thou willt shall be the whole of the Law.
Given the system of Will and the essential moral relativism it seems to indicate, it may be asked how it is possible to live a moral and ethical life in such a world.
The answer is quite simple. Thelema is not so much a relativistic religion as it is a perspectivist religion. The distinction is vitally important. Relativism is a form of nihilism. A relativist believes there are no useful conditions of morality whatsoever. By contrast, a perspectivist believes there are legitimate conditions for morality, but that morality is determined by the outlook of the person. Thus, a perspectivist allows the possibility that a person can be immoral, though only in terms of their moral standard being illegitimate in the light of their particular circumstances. A relativist does not allow such a consideration--he will believe that any action, no matter what it is, has an equal value to any other action in any circumstance.
There are two main libri on Thelemic morality. One is named Liber Librae sub figura XXX, or "The Book of the Balance". The other is known as Liber OZ, and because it is shorter than The Book of the Balance I will include it here with general remarks.
"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world." AL. II. 2
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." --AL. I. 40
"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." --AL. I. 42-3
"Every man and every woman is a star." --AL. I. 3
There is no god but man.
1. Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." --AL. II. 58
"Love is the Law, Love under Will." --AL. I. 57
© O.T.O.
It will be noticed that the most common word here is "will". Again, Will is not so much desire as it is spiritual nature. Thus, Liber OZ advocates a simple code of conduct. If it is within your True Will, it is moral.
Analysis
"There is no god but man". "I am alone, there is no god where I am". "No god", or "There is no god" is suggested by Crowley (The Vision and the Voice) to mean that God is in all things, and not independent. Rather than an objective and impersonal entity, God may be seen as immanent in the world. Man is the building block of universal consciousness, which may be thought of as God--far from meaning that God does not exist, the phrase "There is no god but man" means that man is himself a logos for the expression of the divine will, in fact he is the divine will.
Since the most common word in the document is "Will", and "Will" means destiny (you cannot escape your will, denying it means denying yourself, effectively cancelling your own existence), this document is not a defense of free will and whim. Note the first line--"man has the right to live by his own law". This is not a defense of anarchism, because implicit in this line is "man has no right to live by no law".
According to The Book of the Law, "Love is the law". So how can man live by his own law, if the law is "love" and therefore appointed, not chosen? It gets back to Qabalah--love and will are two sides of the same coin. The will unites the man with all else, and this is an act of love. At root, will is all that a man is or may be. This further removes personal choice when it comes to Thelemic morality, because the only "good" thing is the will, and any act of the will. Love of necessity will be the way in which this will is expressed--any act therefore which is not implicitly expressing itself through love is not an act of will, and is not moral.
"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights; 'The slaves shall serve'". The placement of this quote, "The slaves shall serve", from The Book of the Law is interesting. Who are the slaves? Whom--or what--do the slaves serve? It seems that these "rights" are things in accordance with our wills. We have the "right" to kill such people--it would be a part of our will. This illustrates the irrepressiveness of the will. Any act against the will is going to be struck down by it. Nobody can oppose another person who is acting in accordance with their will, it would be like trying to stop a freight train with your body. However, this implies that you can't go out and kill someone because you percieve them to be violating your will--and I suspect that "kill" is not literal in any case, given the placement of the quote. For as a part of our will, to "kill" is here a necessary act, not a matter of free will. It cannot be another man's will to thwart mine. Therefore it is not his right. Slaves have no rights. The slave is therefore a person who acts against his will. It is thus the slave who is killed if he seeks to thwart these rights--if all wills are complimentary, "to kill" here couild simply mean corrective action, a theory than any attempt to thwart another's will is necessarily going to fail, and there will be natural repercussions for this act, so that the slave is no longer a slave (because he is pushed back into his own will's "orbit")--the slave is thus killed.
Love is the law, love under will.
