A lot of people seem to assume that the ethics of Satanists are simply the inverse of Judeo-Christian ethics, i.e., a duty to do harm and evil. It adds credence to the Satanic-ritual-killings UL. But Satanism, at least as expressed in the Church of Satan founded by Anton Szandor LaVey, is not about that. Here, for instance, are The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth:
This certainly inverts Christian ethics in substituting pride for humility as a central value. But it does not impose a duty to do evil. It is fierce. You could make a case that it does not pass the test of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, i.e., if everybody followed this code, society could not function. But, it is not supposed to; Satanism does not even purport to be a religion of universal value, it is an elitist creed meant for persons of certain character, of noble souls in an old-school (possibly Bronze Age) aristocratic sense.
The Nine Satanic Sins are also of interest – very thoughtful, as religious commandments go:
So:
Is Satanism possibly a path of genuine spiritual value for those souls suited to it by its own terms?
Are the rest of us any better off or worse off for having that Satanic elite in the world?
It seems somewhat Objectivistic, in a sense of isolating and prioritising based on areas of control. Anyway;
I don’t believe there is any creed which is entirely without value in spiritual terms, but then I don’t consider a spiritual self to have any objective standard. The question for me is “suited to it”; I would wager that the persons most drawn to it are probably the least likely to learn any lessons from it, given that they are drawn to the ideas in the first place.
I wouldn’t say better or worse, no. Really, I would say the most effective thing as regards how everyone might be affected is probably the name issue; the success of Satanism as an ethic would i’d guess result in a corresponding success of Christian ethics in a sense that there is an “enemy” to point to. But I couldn’t say whether that would be inherently good or bad.
Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. Wonderful rule.
Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. Wonderful rule.
When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. Wonderful rule.
If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. A little harsh, I would say. Get out works fine. After all, he is a guest, not an invader.
Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Wonderful rule. I assume it respects when the other says NO.
Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. If that means respect their property, cool. If he tells you to take something with his permission, take it. Cool with that.
Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. Wonderful rule.
Do not harm little children. Wonderful rule.
Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. Good rule.
When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him. A little harsh, I would say. The bother no one part is OK. The destroy part depends on how the other is bothering you (bothering as in threat to your life, or simply annoying to look at?)
I took that as meaning, you can make a friendly “initial offer” but you can’t pursue it any further if you are rejected. In short, “no” means exactly that.
Needs a lot of clarification. What if the little child is a suicide bomber? How loosely is little defined? Certainly not to include the teenage minors of today I would hope. And some little kids by virtue of being all Id impluses are destructive little savages that should be put down like dogs for the good of society. I
You know, it does seem familiar… It pretends to appeal to the “bad guys”, and talks in terms of extreme selfishness and sense of self worth, and “how to be a clever evil guy”, but in the end, it strongly resembles Macchiavelli. Sort of a “do the right thing because it benefits you” approach.
And I’ll just point out what I do whenever this topic comes up: “Satanic” already has (and had) a meaning, and if LaVey didn’t want people to think that what he was advocating was Satanism, he should have picked a different word. That’s not Satanism. Now, one might reasonably argue that there are no true Satanists (or at least, very few of them), but then, there are no true unicorns, either, but everyone still knows what the word means.
So what is the true meaning of Satanism? I mean, I know there are lots of people who think of Lucifer as kind of a cool, heroic, badass character for not just wanting to bend to God’s will. And then there’s the stereotypical “Haaaaail Satan!” thing from Rosemary’s Baby or that South Park episode, which doesn’t actually exist. And then there was the whole black mass thing in the Exorcist. But what is “real” Satanism?
I thought it was those creepy weirdos in the red robes, from the old Hammer films. You know “Devils Rain” type stuff, at the end they all scream and melt while the scary music plays. Meh. I figure, even without a Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub, we humans are fully capable of any and all sorts of things. Being the Devil must be an easy gig. Just let the humans have their way and watch the show.
I had a long-term relationship with one. At least he used to babysit Zeena LaVey’s son, Stanton, who was mostly embarrassed by his mother (at least he was at the time – who knows what he thinks now that he is grown).
I attended a handful of “gatherings” and by-and-large, they were genuinely nice people who were more into presenting the shock value of their existence in a predominantly Judeo-Christian environment.
I think there’s some value in the Satanic ethic, but mostly in the sense that it’s better than nothing. I think it largely embodies an outdated form of ethics that over emphasizes the importance of the individual and under emphasizes the role of the individual in society.
This is well illustrated by the “Do unto other as they do unto you.” This, largely will have the same result if everyone treats eachother nicely, then everyone will continue to do so, but it can quickly lead to escalation. For instance, with the fourth rule about a guest in your lair annoying you, it seems unnecessarily harsh, beyond “as they do unto you”, and ultimately counter-productive to treat them cruelly. If we’re to do unto them as they do unto us, annoy them back or make them leave. Cruelty is intentional, annoyance may not necessarily be.
Similarly, I very much agree with the ideas against herd mentality and lack of pretentiousness, but it seems to take it too far to the point where its anti-conformity is essentially the same sort of thing. In fact, I would argue that the very idea of calling it Satanism, knowing the sorts of reactions it will incite seems to essentially make followers of this creed slaves to the same notions, by the opposite extreme. Sure, I understand the importance of the self, but society exists for reason, and I believe that is because most people believe that the concessions one has to make to be a part of it are worth the benefits it entails.
It short, it really just seems like a somewhat less evolved version of rational self-interest. It puts the self and his own values, pride, and desires at the front, but it doesn’t really seem to reinforce the idea that one’s motives can often be more easily attained by making compromises in some areas. Of course, I think most people that would adopt these would ultimately have some personal values that would make them not want to escalate or make them want to work with others, even if these ethics would allow them to, so I don’t really see these rules ultimately being a whole lot different in practice than any other set of ethics.
I disagree. For a while LaVey gave weekly lectures on the occult and it wasn’t a very lucrative gig. After some consultation, he formed the Church of Satan and even persuaded a reporter-friend of his to have a Satanic Wedding. The media lapped it all up. Some of his followers eventually accused LaVey of not being a real Satanist-- say it isn’t so Anton! Personally I think that LaVey was just as much of a satanist as PT Barnum.
“All religions are based on abstinence, rather than indulgence. And all religions therefore have to be based on fear. Well, we don’t feel that fear is necessary to base a religion on.”
Chronos, you’re missing on a key point of Satanism, at least as practiced by most of the people I know. They want you to think they are evil. There is value to them in scaring Judeo-Christian people.
I know pastors who have been told by Satanists that they were praying to Satan against them. Seeing as they don’t believe Satan is a real entity, I can only surmise they were trolling them.
In fact, that’s what I tend to see Satanism as–a religion for trolls. I have not met anyone who joined because of the Objectivism-like philosophy. The attraction is to be able to call yourself a “Satanist.” People who do not want to troll tend to join Wicca or something like that.
As for the creeds, it’s obvious how often the idea of being “evil” is presented in them, while still telling them to do good things. As for the cardinal sins: they all pretty much contradict the second one, since there’s an underlying current of thinking that you are incredibly important and powerful. And
Are we really worse off for having these people? I dunno. It’s a pretty safe place to rebel, and I’ve met few people who continue in it beyond 25 or so. I’d be much more worried about a Satanism that said that you should go and do everything that is evil. This one loses most of it’s power when you understand what it is.
