Satanic Ethics - Part Two

Continued from Part One

KP: My earlier comment wasn't so much about the number of people who believe as you do. I'm quite sure there are many. Rather, I was curious as to why anyone SHOULD believe as you do.


Notna: SHOULD?! Honestly, it's self-fulfilling, gratifying, and when a lucid grip of it is obtained, you do hold the upperhand at times when you otherwise would not.

KP: So, people should do whatever is self-gratifying?

Notna: Yes, but responsibly so. Here comes the ethical stuff. I do not condone rape, murder, preying on the invalid, stuff like that - no matter how gratifying that is. That is NOT evil, that is STUPID! Those are the dipsh**s that turn to Satanism without knowing what it is and expect to be patted on the back. FOOLS!

KP: But why should people do what is self-gratifying? According to what authority is this ethical prescription based? And why shouldn't people do what is stupid?

Notna: Did you really just ask me that?

KP: Yes, I did.

Notna: C'mon KP, that doesn't even deserve an answer.

KP: Humor me. ;-) I'm just a dumb Christian, remember?

Notna: I never said that. Stupid actions get stupid results. Equate it to pissing into the wind.


KP: Do you have the same objection to pissing into the wind that you do to rape, murder, and preying on invalids?

Notna: Sure I do. It's like running in a circle. You're never gonna end up anywhere except chasing your own tail.

KP: So someone who pisses into the wind is as blameworthy as one who rapes a child?

Notna: No. Only equally as stupid.

KP: But there really isn't any basis for moral praise or blame, is there?

Notna: Someone who rapes a child deserves to have the living sh** kicked out of him. Someone who pisses in the wind needs not be touched. YUCK!

KP: So you believe in something like justice? But if there is no evil, why should there be justice?

Notna: Pissing in the wind doesn't cross the same moral boundary as rape or murder. It works the same way with the law actually. The rapists and murderers are punished worse than the guy who was throwing snowballs at cars. They are both stupid as hell.

KP: But if there is no real evil, why should there be penalization?

Notna: There is evil, but I don't find it to be defined the same way as the Bible. Fortunately Webster didn't write the Bible.

KP: Please tell me how you define evil. What is it?

Notna: Evil is LIVE spelled backwards. Everything that is defined as evil is something that we would possibly enjoy in THIS lifetime. Why repress it? Why spend this lifetime repressing myself in hopes of my "next" life that I don't even know I'm gonna have? Screw that! I'm having too much fun now and who should stop me?

KP: Deriving our ethics from the spellings of English words may not be the best practice. Furthermore, I think the child rapist enjoyed his actions. Why repress it?

Notna: Because it's f***ed up and if he raped one of my relatives he'd better find a nice secluded dungeon to hide in. I wouldn't kill him, I'd rather watch him live and suffer. We don't turn the other cheek. Nor do I think the meek will inherit the Earth. The strong will survive and that's just how ecology works. The meek don't win the Superbowl.

KP: Why does someone who does what you said he should, namely live for self-gratification, deserve to "have the living s*** kicked out of him?" He deserves to be penalized for what may be normal for him?

Notna: KP, why do YOU think? I just told you why I thought so. You're welcome to cuss. I'm a 30 year old adult.

KP: He deserves to be penalized for doing what he OUGHT to do? That's a pretty messed up ethical system where someone gets punished for behaving as he ought to.

Notna: Sure. That's causing harm and damage to another person who didn't deserve it.


KP: But you said people should do whatever is self-gratifying, didn't you? And now you want to punish them for it? That sounds unjust.


Notna: I also said what I don't condone. And Satanists only believe in doing harm to those who well deserve it. Whether it be through magick or through personal physical vengeance.

Notna: No one is supposed to rape a child and you know it. You sound like one of the stupid ass misdirected people who turn to Satanism for all the wrong reasons and get disgruntled when they figure out they're dumber than hell.

KP: I'm not advocating the rape of children. I'm just trying to follow the logic of your position. Please don't be upset with me. But you've already said that people ought to act consistently with their desires. Now you're saying that in some cases those desires should be repressed. But I thought your objection to Christianity was exactly because you saw it as repressive. Why should the rapist conform to the herd mentality of civil laws?

Notna: KP, we are all required to be responsible humans. Actions like that need repercussion. Things like that were not meant to be. I'm not upset with you, I just think this debate may be losing a bit of its luster. There are some things xtiantiy preaches that I have no problem with. But sleeping in, overeating, sex, indulgence, etc. - those are self-gratifying and don't hurt anybody else.

KP: So we are morally obliged not to harm another? Is that what you're saying?

Notna: Yes, when it comes to victimizing an unsuspecting individual who does not deserve it.

KP: And the authority that issues this moral obligation is....?

Notna: The rapists who escapes the law because the big-breasted 14 year old wore a revealing shirt should not be free from getting his face smashed in by the girl's father.

KP: And the authority that issues this moral obligation is......?

Notna: In Satanism there is no "authority." Satanism is not meant for people who prey on the weak for no reason.

KP: So if there's no authority, then what is the origin of this moral obligation you keep talking about?

Notna: It is simply a moral code of humanity and harming someone in that manner simply buys bad karma. If you wish for bad things to happen to you, go ahead and pull sh** like that but don't cry when the sky starts falling.

KP: But why am I morally obliged to abide by the moral code of humanity? If there is no transcendent authority, then there is no such obligation.

Notna: You are not obliged but if you do it, don't cry about the results. You get what you deserve.

KP: So then I'm NOT obliged to not harm another, am I? There ‘s no objective basis for this obligation you keep appealing to. It's simply a statement of your personal preference. But then the question is, Why should I abide by your personal preferences? I fail to see how your position isn’t reducible to subjectivism and ultimately nihilism. You DID say that your ethical assertions were only your opinions, right?

Notna: For the most part. But you’re looking for holes that don't possess lucid thought. You're making the argument of an uneducated fool. I realize that you're not, but you're trying to make me defend myself instead of having stimulating conversation.

KP: I'm simply asking you to be consistent, that's all. And I don't see asking you to defend your position as being diametrically opposed to stimulating conversation. And there’s no need for you to engage in insult and ad hominem argumentation. If my argument is flawed, please point out how. Otherwise, please address my questions.

Notna: I wasn't. I concurred that I knew you weren't stupid. Anyway, I am quite consistent.

KP: There is no objective basis for this obligation you keep appealing to. It's simply a statement of your personal preference. But then the question arises, why should I abide by what you prefer? You DID say that your ethical assertions were only your opinions, right?

Notna: I don't try to shove it down your throat with fear tactics like the friggin' Christians do. There is no God of everlasting power that I am to be afraid will strike me down if I have sex with someone I just met. Where's the justice in that, man? My opinion as well as others, but there is no law other than the laws of magick or karmic consequence that will strike me down if I do something stupid.

KP: So you believe it's wrong to "shove one's ideas down someone's throat" (whatever that means)? But that again is simply a statement of your personal preference, right? There's no objective standard by which we can determine that that is actually wrong, is there?

Part Three