Seeing the Shades of Grey

Ne nuis pas à ton voisin.
Ceci bien compris, fais ce qu'il te plaît.
~ Les Aventures du Roi Pausole, Pierre Louÿs

As I prepare for a discussion on pagan ethics, I am searching out relevant hypertexts that might add to the materials already in my possession. One such text that drew my attention was "Harm None" by Marta Garcia at Old Ways.

Discussions of the Rede are plentiful, whether online or at events in the community. What I really appreciated about this one is that it talks about the Wiccan Rede as an ethical compass for all actions, and not just those of a magical or spiritual nature.

I was troubled, however, by the example used to illustrate the mundane application of the Rede. It is unquestionably a realistic situation, and one that could be faced by any of us in some form or another. What bothers me is that the author only saw two possible actions, and rather than looking for the best possible outcome in a sensitive situation, she found herself instead looking at choosing what she felt was the lesser of two evils:

Recently, I had to decide whether or not to report a co-worker to the higher ups. This person had, in my view, been verbally abusive to a child in a pediatric unit of a nursing home. I had to decide what the lesser of two evils would be:

1. The co-worker losing their job in these hard economic times,
2. Allowing for the children we work with to continue to be verbally abused

Did I want this person to lose their job, knowing full well that the economy is bad and jobs are hard to find? No. But if I chose not to report this incident so that the co-worker could keep their job, then I would be allowing their behavior to continue within the unit. Did I want such behavior to continue amongst children? No. Part of my and everyone’s job within the unit is to protect the children. I chose to report what I had witnessed.

One of the recurring themes in the neo-pagan community is that of a religion without converts, because we are simply "coming home" to a place we never really left. In reality, though, becoming pagan is a journey that sometimes involves learning to leave behind certain preconceived notions in order to be able to function with the tools and the current we have chosen as our own.

Many pagans who were raised in North America continue to cling to a dualistic worldview, long after they have divested themselves of most other aspects of western morality. This mentality emphasizes polarities such as good vs evil, wrong vs right, us vs them. It tends to limit our ability to conceive of possible actions or solutions to a problem. It can also create an adversarial atmosphere, in which the assumption is that only one person's interests can be served in any given situation.

The ultimate consequence of this way of thinking can often be that we seek to determine who will triumph, and we rush to align ourselves with that party in order to avoid injury to ourselves. To some extent that's just human nature, but let's not try to pass it off as ethical behaviour.

It's self-preservation, not morality.

"But if I chose not to report this incident so that the co-worker could keep their job, then I would be allowing their behavior to continue within the unit." What's happening here? Is the author taking responsibility for her own actions? She wasn't the person who acted inappropriately. Why is she responsible for what happened?

The fact is, she's not. She may be seizing control of the situation, but what she is doing isn't taking responsibility. Taking responsibility when we see a wrong doesn't just mean preventing it from recurring; it also means taking steps to address the damage already done. By reporting the colleague, she skips right over the responsibility part and goes straight to seeing that the colleague is punished. I see very little difference between that and an eight-year-old tattling on her sister.

"This person had, in my view, been verbally abusive to a child in a pediatric unit of a nursing home." So we're not talking about a legal definition of abuse, or even a policy specific to that particular workplace. We're talking about a personal opinion of what is right and what is wrong.

"Part of my . . . job within the unit is to protect the children." How does she do that? Apparently not by intervening at the moment of the incident in order to minimize the negative impact of what was said, nor by informing the parents - who had every right to know if there was a genuine incidence of abuse. She does not question her colleague, call her on her behaviour, or attempt to ascertain if the incident was provoked by some sort of distress for which she could offer support or assistance. The only two possibilities she sees are to ignore the behaviour or to report it.

I see no morality there, no compassion for either child or colleague. Just a need to side with the right. "Management investigated the situation," she tells us. Her employers, "chose not to allow this person back in the building and the co-worker proceeded to retire." Again in this statement, I see no positive actions taken on behalf of the child or his family. I see no attempts on behalf of the management to address what had sparked the incident, in hopes of preventing it with future employees. It sounds like they did the same thing the author chose to do: they covered their own backside.

 So what makes it ethical to side with the employer over the colleague? What about this situation benefits any child? This is not a question of morality. It's a question of minimizing liability and doing damage control. It's an ethical farce.

Since many neo-pagans also embrace the concept of karma, let's think what kind of karma a choice like the one above will bring. With one staff member terminated for abuse, the rest will need to be extra vigilant. Everyone will dread the moment when they lose their temper with a child. They will need to beware of someone walking by a room and taking a snippet of conversation so completely out of context as to make it appear they too are being abusive. Anyone could be the next to suffer the fate of their "retired" colleague.

And will those children have gained anything at all from the loss of staff members who, in these difficult economic times, the nursing home may simply choose not to replace? What will the fate of the children be when staff numbers are cut, and those who are left to care for them must do even more with less time. Rather than taking a high moral ground, our author could easily be creating the perfect conditions for even more abuse to take place.

Yes, there is an element of the extreme to the scenario I offer. But I am addressing an audience whose members by and large accept the existence of such things like magic and the Butterfly Effect. This is but one possible future, given the circumstances described by our author.

The problem with trying to take on responsibility for the actions of another is, we simply don't know where that choice will lead. In the great majority of cases it is far better to choose to act morally ourselves, and to encourage those around us to do the same, than to take on the actions of another.

As pagans we like to pride ourselves on how tolerant and accepting we are, how we can celebrate a rainbow of diverse lifestyles and paths without passing judgement. So why cling to a black and white morality?

Learn to see the shades of grey. Learn to see all the hues of the moral rainbow, and all the options they represent. Embrace the infinite realities that are open to you.

Think outside the box.