How did you form your moral worldview?

[Lame Entropy]

I think it's sad how little we really know about pagan practices. Nordic paganism wasn't written about until the active practice was gone for about 200 years.

I'm honestly more disappointed over the eddas being rewritten by scholars to fit a Christian model

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

I'm bipolar

God that makes so much fucking sense.

 

[Just Dont]

God that makes so much fucking sense.

What do you mean?

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

What is the most virtuous endeavor a person can do?

Technically help others, giving more of your time of those rather than you. And not in a religious-based manner.

What is the opposite, the most sinful?

Obviously any type of harm against a human, but probably the worst is rape. I always said rape is worse than murder because the probably PSTD the victim gonna had is a pseudo-death sentence if not treated well.

What' the frequency where you examine the morality of your actions?

Not often, because I hardly have contact with people in general.

Did you form your own opinion on morality or did it derive from an authority?

Yes.

Which authority?

My parents, but mostly my father.

If you did form your own opinion, what was the most defining moment in that development?

Well, it's actually mixed with my own life, and the most defining moment was when i was 17 years old.

Is there anyone you trust to have a better moral view than yourself?

No.

Why (not)?

Because right now is my builded moral view. I don't need more knowledge.

Do you think other people should follow your moral view?

No, because probably they're gonna get sad more than normal.

Do you remove people from your life that don't?

No, that's stupid. They're always welcome if can be polite.

Do you have any experience where you were surprised for your own sense of justice or morality?

Yes, and was good.

What popular activity do you consider immoral?

Actually, if you're a angry person near everyday, getting drunk.

What is popularly considered immoral, but you consider moral?

Questioning. Oh yes.

 

[knobslobbin]

For the most part I know what's right and wrong from my upbringing, 99% of things are cut and dry. (not that always do the right thing, but I at least know what that is.

The complicated shit that you would cover in an ethics or philosophy class rarely happen in real life.

don't lie cheat and steal, and be kind. Bam bases covers, no need to complicate it.

 

[pedoguyguykrai]

1. What is the most virtuous endeavor a person can do?

Not fuck anyone over. Seriously half the bad shit people do always involve some one trying or fucking someone over. druggies steal, jealous husbands kill their cheating wives, the root of all evil is someone fucking some else over to a point they react violently or have a bad worldview. its human nature yes, but the worst part of it.

2. What is the opposite, the most sinful?
behaving in activities that can fuck people over.

3. What' the frequency where you examine the morality of your actions?
Some nights I sit and think, how did I become so jaded, so angry, so nihilistic..then I remember I got fucked over multiple times, and my job is cleaning after fuck ups..
4.a Did you form your own opinion on morality or did it derive from an authority? 4.b Which authority?
none, no one was either stable enough, or well enough to be an important facet in my life, if anything they're examples as to why I shouldn't repeat what they did.
5. If you did form your own opinion, what was the most defining moment in that development?
The moment I had to grow up to early.

6a. Is there anyone you trust to have a better moral view than yourself? 6b. Why (not)?

Everyone I would consider friends, or acquaintances are either too warped in their own view, any family I have left alive are cut off for being grifters, the moment I started living for me. about your average kiwifarm user might have a better world or moral view, than I would, but even that I consider a tad bit flawed.

7a. Do you think other people should follow your moral view? 7b. Do you remove people from your life that don't?
Not really, I've cut my sister off for being a grifter when I started making bank, she got pregnant at the same I age I had to get up and work, shes a commie too, and have called and begged for bail money when she runs into a bout of bad decisions.

8. Do you have any experience where you were surprised for your own sense of justice or morality?
I've become suprised at how unfeeling I've become, yes I occasionally mourn what I've lost but I am mostly numb some days.

9. What popular activity do you consider immoral?
Virtue signalling

10. What is popularly considered immoral, but you consider moral?
Thinking about profits over people, I never got that when you run a business you want to make money right?

 

[Blamo]

Me talking about morality, that's rich. lol

1. What is the most virtuous endeavor a person can do?

The acquisition of power/self improvement while helping other find their way and letting them thrive.

2. What is the opposite, the most sinful?

2. things
Just giving all your "influence" away for no reason. People's complacency allow tyrants and oppression to arise.
Just abusing others for joy. That's just being slave to your animal nature.

3. What' the frequency where you examine the morality of your actions?

Not really, I am a nobody. My decisions carry no weight. The more important and powerful someone is, the more important making the right decisions is.

4.a Did you form your own opinion on morality or did it derive from an authority? 4.b Which authority?

From my past experiences and a combination of my inherent romantic personality combined with my admiration of getting things done.
I looked for past experience, strategy etc. to make sense of the world.

5. If you did form your own opinion, what was the most defining moment in that development?

The socialist block's failure, my family's hardships and my personal failures. It is a process.

6a. Is there anyone you trust to have a better moral view than yourself? 6b. Why (not)?

Dunno. Moral questions in general are like kryptonite to me. Most of it is just fluff for people to justify living with a boot on their neck.

7a. Do you think other people should follow your moral view? 7b. Do you remove people from your life that don't?

B) No, of course not. In fact I do like that other people and groups have different views. If not compressed together in universalist nonsense there is a lot of room for improvement, competition and reaching our potential via conflict.
A) I don't think so. I think it is impossible to iron out the two extremes.

8. Do you have any experience where you were surprised for your own sense of justice or morality?

I really can't be outraged at my foes or people in general. You do what you do, because I am weak.

9. What popular activity do you consider immoral?

Just following the rules, giving away your consent without thinking.
I think interpersonal bonds should be important. (kinda contradiction on my part.)

10. What is popularly considered immoral, but you consider moral?

I think conflict in necessary. Homogenization and globalization are pretty much evil for me because it takes away the opportunity for groups to exist, let alone compete.

Also I think sacrificing everything for convenience is cringe. You give away your ability to affect the world because you are too lazy to do things. All that just flows away to somebody else who you will be beholden to unequally.

 

[Solid Snek]

I am curious where people's morality derives from, if you observe any knowingly.

I find that nobody is immune from acting as moral agents, even nihilists or hedonists can be observed doing things or holding beliefs that seem to be more for moral reasons than pure selfishness.

How many hedonists would say they are not moral agents? Hendoism is very much an ethical system, and while some "hedonists" may not be philosophical hedonists, I think even "naive" hedonists tend to be, at least on some level, aware of the virtue of happiness, in favour of happiness as an intrinsic value, and morally committed to the maximization of happiness.

Also, why are you saying "pure selfishness" in this manner, as if pure selfishness is the opposite of / incompatible with, moral reason? Is this to be an Objectivist-free thread?

Of course, no matter what ideals a person has, nobody is perfect in following it.

So unless you want to write an essay about how your moral framework was formed, let's ask a couple of questions to get things started:

Ten questions is more than a couple.

More to the point: with these questions, are you asking us to answer from the perspective of what we hold to be moral? Or what we hold to be objectively/ universally moral? (if there happen to be any disagreements between these two positions, at any rate)

I'd be happy to answer to the most autistic of my ability, but I'd like to clear this point up first, before I go and muck up your whole questionnaire.

 

[Cum Laudely]

4.a Did you form your own opinion on morality or did it derive from an authority? 4.b Which authority?

My own, if you want to get philosophical is anything our own? Since its probably already been thought of by now. I observe before I make judgements. I've done this even as a toddler and a kid. I played in the corner by myself as a kid. I watched others play not out of envy but to learn and observe.

5. If you did form your own opinion, what was the most defining moment in that development?

There was no "moment" it always has been this way for me. Once I became self aware once I established consciousness, its been forming ever since.

6a. Is there anyone you trust to have a better moral view than yourself? 6b. Why (not)?

Yes, my mother.

7a. Do you think other people should follow your moral view? 7b. Do you remove people from your life that don't?

A. No I am not the arbiter of morality.
B. No because one has to do a lot for that to happen. As an extreme example be a kid fucker yeah I ain't going to be your friend.

 

[Titos]

Basically the NAP only with obvious attempts to drag society into insanity being counted as aggression. Don't fuck with other people, try to help other people if they want to be helped, and if they don't want to be helped but they're actions are causing society to decay then they should be forcefully helped. How I came to this is just realizing that almost everyone, including myself is a fucking idiot in some way or another and people should just leave shit alone but you can't have someone poisoning the air next to you for too long without you too being poisoned.

 

[Fek]

Damn, getting some pretty fucking good replies.. @Haim Arlosoroff in particular. Top notch, sir.

Basically the NAP only with obvious attempts to drag society into insanity being counted as aggression. Don't fuck with other people, try to help other people if they want to be helped, and if they don't want to be helped but they're actions are causing society to decay then they should be forcefully helped. How I came to this is just realizing that almost everyone, including myself is a fucking idiot in some way or another and people should just leave shit alone but you can't have someone poisoning the air next to you for too long without you too being poisoned.

My biggest issue with the entire idea of the NAP is that it's reactionary. If modernity has demonstrated anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's that you cannot simply sit back and wait until other people fuck things up before you fix them. Strictly reacting to bad behavior constantly leaves one on the backfoot. Sooner or later, you must take an active stance in how you want your society to be shaped..lest you lose everything you cherish.

I've been noticing that lately, especially in the last year my moral compass is increasingly defined by whatever boomers/Christians from decades ago used to say.

One man on his own cannot possibly hold a candle to the wisdom passed on through tr-

I think I'm just at the point where I'm going to trust the wisdom of our traditions for my morals from now on. I may (or may not, take your pick) be smarter than most individual christ-tards, but they are speaking the wisdom of countless generations of humans. I just have to accept that despite my personal feelings, there is probably a damn good reason every single distinct culture throughout human history has hated faggotry, race mixing, niggers, general degenracy, female leadership/freedom, and so forth.

..Yeah, that. That exactly, in fact.

 

[mario if smoke weed]

My moral worldview shifted after I realized that 1) I needed to stop trying to please liberal faggots and 2) what these liberal faggots were trying to shove down my throat were lies, falsifications, you name it. I once thought that conservatives were lame fuddy-duddies against positive change but lately I'm starting to see that they had some good points about things. I'm not sold on some of their beliefs, but you won't see me looting and murdering over it like the BLMers.

Faggots aside, I try to just do right by the people I give a shit about, stay out of trouble, mind my own business, and not really give a shit about much else. Not much really happens where I live and I'd rather have that over anything else. The way the government and elite are handling things makes me feel like I might not really get to live as long as I might've expected, so why spend whatever time I have left going out of my way to make a fuss? Idunno.

 

[Lemmingwise]

More to the point: with these questions, are you asking us to answer from the perspective of what we hold to be moral? Or what we hold to be objectively/ universally moral? (if there happen to be any disagreements between these two positions, at any rate)

I'd be happy to answer to the most autistic of my ability, but I'd like to clear this point up first, before I go and muck up your whole questionnaire.

It's an interesting question. What's the chasm between the two? What do you hold to be moral which is not universal? And what is universally moral, yet not to you?

Don't worry too much about the questionaire; it's just there as a path to talk about these things. It's the conversation that matters, not the specific questions. If you think there is something interesting in dismantling/critizing the questions, for example, have at it!

I find what is universally moral more interesting but I put more focus on personal morality for the questions, because it's a better conversation starter. Everyone likes to talk about their own views and it creates some space where it is hard to criticise when people can say "yeah but that's how I see it" as a trump card.

I hope that works as an answer for you.

 

[Solid Snek]

It's an interesting question. What's the chasm between the two? What do you hold to be moral which is not universal? And what is universally moral, yet not to you?

Don't worry too much about the questionaire; it's just there as a path to talk about these things. It's the conversation that matters, not the specific questions. If you think there is something interesting in dismantling/critizing the questions, for example, have at it!

I find what is universally moral more interesting but I put more focus on personal morality for the questions, because it's a better conversation starter. Everyone likes to talk about their own views and it creates some space where it is hard to criticise when people can say "yeah but that's how I see it" as a trump card.

I hope that works as an answer for you.

Yeah, that works I think! The reason I bring this up, is because I tend to view ethics, and act as if ethics, are objective and universal. I think they could be, and we have perhaps merely thus far missed the language necessary to prove it - but beyond analyzing specific moral questions according to specific, situational moral rules (e.g. "if we hold tolerance to be the good, is making Pride Month mandatory in accordance with our values?"), I don't think I can say much more with confidence. I certainly wouldn't consider myself to be an ethical nihilist (seems like a self-detonating position; surely, asserting no moral value is itself an assertion of moral value?) nor even a relativist (is it even POSSIBLE to be truly and consistently relativist? Consistent relativism would naturally entail recognizing the equal [universal] value of competing ethical systems, possibly pointing towards the need for some kind of higher-order libertarian ethics that might mediate between incompatible ethical systems; yet everyone puts competing ethical systems into hierarchies of value, and in my experience, self-described "relativists" tend to do so more readily and more eagerly than anyone else!), but I can't prove that ethics are universal, and ultimately I may have to defer to better men like Wittgenstein, who if I understand the literature correctly, eventually came to the conclusion that ethical pronouncements are nonsensical (in a logical positivist sense; that isn't to say they are gibberish or anything, but rather, they are something which cannot be properly, logically analyzed).

tl;dr I guess maybe I'm an ethical Poppernian...? i.e. I'll follow various universal ethical precepts - the soundness of which I cannot prove deductively - and I will act as if they were true, unless and until they can be shown to be in error.

As for the questions

What do you hold to be moral which is not universal? And what is universally moral, yet not to you?

I can't be sure what is universal and what is not, so I guess I can't really answer this - if relativism or nihilism were true, for example, then most of the things I hold to be moral would not be universal. Naturally!

And I'm not sure it's possible to have something be "universally moral, yet not to me" - the set of things which are universal would surely include the set of things which are me, right? Although I do know some people who are very (I guess for lack of a better term) fedora-Nietzschean, who might assert a Will to Power which raises them above "universal" moral axioms. And, again - I touched on this a bit above, but I think one of the issues with relativism ("relativism") in practice, is that this universal level of ethics which relativism leads to ("ethical systems are relative to the individual/culture; yours is neither more nor less valid than anyone else's") tends to get passed over in practice, as relativists gain social authority and arbitrarily crush out ethical systems that they themselves must concede are no less worthy than their own.

I'll try my hand at answering your OP questions in a little bit. Apologizes ahead of time if it gets autistic or if I make any obvious errors in reasoning (ethics is not really a field I'm well-versed in).

 

[Billy Beer]

My gut feeling, backed up by real world experience and believing in better. Its often hard and isolating to have the morals and world view that I do IRL, luckily one of my beliefs is that 'Anything given for free is worthless, anything earned by hardship is priceless'

 

[Gig Bucking Fun]

 

[Solid Snek]

So, still thinking of answering the questions, but I noticed a few earlier responses and thought I'd butt in to for a minute:

I'm honestly more disappointed over the eddas being rewritten by scholars to fit a Christian model

Not to be That Guy, but do you have any citations to back this up?

I myself used to believe in the "Christian retcon" hypothesis - since that's what people told me, and it made sense in my head that Christians would rewrite the Eddas - but I'm actually not sure this is a view that scholars and academics who specialize in Norse literature accept. For example, I know that no less an authority than Jackson Crawford has argued that the Eddas were not rewritten to fit a Christian model, but on the contrary, were likely mostly faithful to the original sources.

Granted, Crawford isn't the only person in the field - he's just the most reliable one I know of who speaks English. And I think the webmaster for... "Norse Mythology for Smart People" (? think that's the site, forget his name) is a Christian retconnivist. However, my understanding is he's kind of fringe; at the very least, he is not as reliable a source on historical and linguistic contexts as Crawford is.

It was his diary about how sex magick requires raping children that may make him a little less reasonable.

Did Lavey endorse shmild rape for the purposes of sex magick? I know this is a charge that's been leveled at Crowley, but I've also heard from some Theosophists that this stuff was either a misattribution, a misunderstanding, or even a complete fabrication.

I'm not saying you're wrong, and frankly I'd be shocked if it WASN'T true, but if anyone has a specific source or citation I could check - either Crowley or Lavey or some other weirdo like that - where they endorse loli sex magicking, it'd be interesting to file away.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Did Lavey endorse shmild rape for the purposes of sex magick? I know this is a charge that's been leveled at Crowley, but I've also heard from some Theosophists that this stuff was either a misattribution, a misunderstanding, or even a complete fabrication.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if anyone has a specific source or citation I could check - either Crowley or Lavey or some other weirdo like that - where they endorse loli sex magicking, it'd be interesting to file away.

You can't really expect those engaged in the occult and esoteric practices to leave and spread written confessions of their crimes. But by the standard of proof you're requiring, written endorsement....


Let's take LaVey's satanic bible. It gives considerable indication, if read carefully.

First it says to never engage in a sex act with an unwilling person in the sex chapter. Yet later in the chapter on sexual rituals it instructs to do them with a willing person or someone who deserves it.

It speaks about how children are sexual from birth and should never be prevented from sexual activity.

Also despite it's early chapter denying human sacrifice, it has a later chapter on the value of human sacrifice and how it's not blood, but being in the death throes that lends its power.

As you can see, it contradicts itself constantly, which is unsurprising for worshippers of the great deceiver.

 

[Solid Snek]

I am curious where people's morality derives from, if you observe any knowingly.

I find that nobody is immune from acting as moral agents, even nihilists or hedonists can be observed doing things or holding beliefs that seem to be more for moral reasons than pure selfishness.

Of course, no matter what ideals a person has, nobody is perfect in following it.

So unless you want to write an essay about how your moral framework was formed, let's ask a couple of questions to get things started:

1. What is the most virtuous endeavor a person can do?

2. What is the opposite, the most sinful?

3. What' the frequency where you examine the morality of your actions?

4.a Did you form your own opinion on morality or did it derive from an authority? 4.b Which authority?

5. If you did form your own opinion, what was the most defining moment in that development?

6a. Is there anyone you trust to have a better moral view than yourself? 6b. Why (not)?

7a. Do you think other people should follow your moral view? 7b. Do you remove people from your life that don't?

8. Do you have any experience where you were surprised for your own sense of justice or morality?

9. What popular activity do you consider immoral?

10. What is popularly considered immoral, but you consider moral?

And yes, this going into my interpol database.

So, again, I'm just going to try and answer this according to my own system of ethics, which, as per my response above, I cannot prove to be universal.

Spoiler: 1 - 5

1. I think maybe I'm a deontological virtue ethicist. I guess...? Two things:
First, the most virtuous endeavor a person can do is to act in accordance with a categorical imperative - to act according to a necessary, rationally-derived, ethical rule. What exactly constitutes a categorical imperative is, again, not something I can prove deductively. However, I think that we can derive certain imperative rules from first principals (e.g. the importance of defending and maintaining free speech, which as per Hume, Popper, et al., derives from the recognition of our imperfect knowledge), which leads me to

Two, the pursuit of knowledge (or wisdom, or gnosis, or logos, or whatever you want to call it. Truth maybe?) is probably the highest good (beyond even pleasure), and possibly even an intrinsic good. I do like hedonism, and I think hedonism is as good a place as any to depart from when making general inquiries about ethics, but ultimately knowledge is more valuable than happiness (especially if, as the Greeks maintained, "true happiness" is only that which derives from wisdom). At the bare minimum, gnosis would be that which points us towards the imperatives against which we must act; without gnosis, we can have no ethics.

2. Hypocrisy. That is to say, wilfully going against ethical precepts you hold to be true, without either refuting or at least rejecting those precepts (at least, when you hold yourself to be a moral agent). Hypocrisy by way of ignorance is bad, too (e.g. the moral relativst who acts as a moral absolutist, simply because he's nto bright enough to see the contradiction), but deliberate hypocrisy on the part of people who do know better is worse.

I don't know if I'd say that's "sinful", necessarily, since that word carries certain religious connotations I don't adhere to. But I don't know if there's a better word (I've got problems with "problematic" and I think "toxic" is ironically more toxic than "sinful" is) so let's just stick with sinful!

3. Not as much as I should! I'm in the habit of playing Devil's Advocate, so in those cases where I'm called upon to, say, make an argument, or defend a position, I think I usually tend to examine "my" position, which often involves some sort of ethical dimension. However, as I'm getting older (and thus more confident in my ways), and I'm spending more time isolated in my dingy seaside house (shitposting online), I think the frequency with which I examine the morality of my actions has slipped. Maybe a couple times a week? Possibly more, but probably less.

4. a. and b. God, I don't know. That's a really broad question, don't you think? It's like, HEY, Snek? Why don't you just sum up a lifetime of epistemology in a Kiwifarms thread?

I mean, clearly, it's both, right? I've been influenced by authorities, AND I'd run through my own process of reasoning. Now, that process of reasoning was itself influenced by authorities, who maybe encouraged me to reason on my own - but my decision to read and accept the arguments of these authorities in the first place was done under my own initiative.

I don't know. It's one of these chicken-or-egg, Free Will versus Determinism kind of things, right? This may be vanity, but I'd like to say it was mostly me (or at least, me doing the choosing between all the influences and arguments I've heard), but if it's true that my ethics can be derived from logically-consistent principles, then I guess the ultimate authority here would be "logic", or "reality". "Reason" maybe (although I actually think I prefer empiricism to reason).

As for human authorities? Probably things like my parents, teachers I've had, authors I really liked. Also some negative authorities, too: authorities who rubbed me the wrong way, and got me primed to DISAGREE with them, such as that one teacher who yelled at me in fifth grade for playing soldier at recess, even though she'd just lectured us about the evils of the Second Amendment. ngl, I am not above holding petty grudges, although I'd like to think that it all eventually evens out thanks to sound epistemological methodology (I've had people I LIKE that I nevertheless wind up disagreeing with later, such as Dawkins and, horribly, Stephen Jay Gould)

5. Possibly the moment I realized I was an anarcho-libertarian? I've always really been like that, but being raised in a society like mine, I always just assumed I was progressive by default; realizing I wasn't, and that was OK, was a great weight off my shoulders. Freed me from a lot of second-guessing and fears of social unacceptability - so, while it's kind of a SMALL thing when measured against everything else in my life, it's at least one of the watershed moments that helped me come to terms with my aims and responsibilities as a moral agent.

Spoiler: 6 - 10

6a. and b. Yes, of course! I am only one man, and while I'll concede that I'm pretty clever, I am not the brightest by far, and even less close to being the best-read.

While I wouldn't say I "trust" a person "with better views" implicitly - that is to say, I won't just a valid authority's word for it when they say something is or is not moral - I am certainly willing to stop and examine my beliefs quite carefully when a superior moral agent to me presents an argument that contradicts my own beliefs. For example, I had a professor once who spoke with me after class, having disagreed with me re: the validity of the "social contract" theory. Ultimately, I think she was wrong (and I hope I persuaded her!) - but I stayed up for like three days in an autistic stupor because of it. As the Bible says, "there is nothing new under the sun"; every question I have ever asked has been examined by SOMEONE out there already, and it would be a incredibly stupid and hubristic mistake not to avail ourselves of these better educated sources.

7 a. Yes, with a BUT - as I am mostly concerned about ethical methodology (skepticism, consistency, openness, etc), rather than exact ethical proscriptions, I think someone could follow "my ethics" and arrive at very different conclusions as to what actions are ethical and what are not. Moreover, while I'd certainly like to persuade people to come over to my way of thinking, I can't really force anyone to, and wouldn't want to even if I could.

b. No.

8. Yeah, sometimes. I tend to be pretty pigheaded and outspoken when I feel a cause is just; even to my detriment. For better or worse, my parents were the same way, and while I won't bore you with any anecdotes, it's even got me fired in the past. The fact that I can lose myself in the moment and just go all-in on a bit of what I consider to be justice or sound ethics isn't really a surprise, but the times it becomes necessary do tend to creep up on me, and leave me wondering what the hell I was thinking afterwards.

9. Cancel culture. Although the degree to which that's "popular" (versus to which that's being magnified by those in positions of power) is, I think, very much up for debate.

There's plenty of other things, too, but that's the first one that comes to mind.

10. Piracy. This was actually one of those things I did a complete 180 on; originally I was an amoral apathetic in regards to digital copyright law (when I was a kid, I thought it was bad, but whaaateeeeever maaaan) although I've since become convinced that contemporary copyright is a philosophically and ethically bankrupt system, with no valid basis whatsoever. You stick me in a room with my 11yo Napster downloading self, and blood will be shed.

Again, plenty of other things, too, but I'm not falling for a glowpost again, so I'll just give you that one for now.

You can't really expect those engaged in the occult and esoteric practices to leave and spread written confessions of their crimes. But by the standard of proof you're requiring, written endorsement....


Let's take LaVey's satanic bible. It gives considerable indication, if read carefully.

First it says to never engage in a sex act with an unwilling person in the sex chapter. Yet later in the chapter on sexual rituals it instructs to do them with a willing person or someone who deserves it.

It speaks about how children are sexual from birth and should never be prevented from sexual activity.

Also despite it's early chapter denying human sacrifice, it has a later chapter on the value of human sacrifice and how it's not blood, but being in the death throes that lends its power.

As you can see, it contradicts itself constantly, which is unsurprising for worshippers of the great deceiver.

Ah, OK, fair enough. Sounds similar to the Crowley stuff, too, and I think we can be fairly confident, on inductive grounds, that "Levey" was pro-shmild shmolestation, from the red bit if nothing else. (I'm certainly not going to ask you to prove conclusively that he was raping kiddos! Simply establishing that he endorsed it is sufficient.)

-edit- so, just did a quick search through the Satanic Bible for the term "child". Only thing I found of relevance was

To illustrate the undebatable fact that masturbation is an entirely normal and healthy practice: it is performed by all members of the animal kingdom. Human children will also follow their instictive masturbatory desires, unless they have been scolded for it by their indignant parents, who were undoubtably berated for it by their parents, and so on down the retrocedent line. ​

It is unfortunate, but true, that the sexual guilts of parents will immutably be passed on to their children. In order to save our children from the ill-fated sexual destiny of our parents, grandparents, and possibly ourselves, the perverted moral code of the past must be exposed for what it is: a pragmatically organized set of rules which, if rigidly obeyed, would destroy us! Unless we emancipate ourselves from the ridiculous sexual standards of our present society, including the so-called sexual revolution, the neuroses caused by those stifling regulations will persist. Adherence to the sensible and humanistic new morality of Satanism can - and will - evolve society in which our children can grow up healthy and without the devastating moral encumbrances of our existing sick society. (LeVay, 40)​

In fairness to LeVay, that's more about teaching kids to jerk it than it is about using kids in sex magick (in contrast, there's at least two parts where specifically he warns against using kids for sex magick). And it's interesting, too, because hasn't there been a lot of political sperging recently about schools teaching masturbation? Like that Church of Satan FOR KIDS stuff that got popular several years back, then the various kerfluffles about Drag Queen Story Hour, and now these (apparently unaffiliated?) courses in public schools...?

I mean, I grew up in the 90s, and I remember we were all encouraged to view fundies as crazy kooks (even as we were encouraged to explore things like Satanism). But I really don't see how anyone can miss this stuff now, or how mainstream it's become.

Something something, revelation of the method, something something, hiding in plain sight. Not sure if Houdini would be proud, or aghast...

 

[Stoneheart]

i took a bunch of drugs in my early 20s, my moral compass is what my mush brain could pieced together from my upbringing...