1) Vengeance and the “eye-for-an-eye” thing seems to be very important, and shows up in the “dos and don’t list” on the COS website several times. Obviously, there are lots of timeworn arguments about the usefulness of this as a principle for maintaining social order. Bloodfeuds and honor killings didn’t seem like such a great thing for the European nobility or for the Middle East today, yet they seem based on the same premise. I already mentioned why I thought your use of this strategy was counterproductive to your stated goal of clarifying COS ideas in the other thread. How would you argue that such a principle is more effective than a forgiveness principle? Try, if possible, to avoid strawmen (complete pacifism is NOT what I am suggesting, so you needn’t bother to argue against that).
I’d like to take a crack at this, if I may.
Satanism is first and foremost a religion which champions the individual.
As with so many other things, “rational” self-interest is paramount.
Again, we’re talking an issue of pragmatism.
Does the desire for revenge outweigh the consequences which are inevitably entailed?
Quite often, the answer is “no.”
Bloodfeuds and honor killings would not benefit the Satanist.
How savory is the taste of vengeance, when it can only be relished through cold prison bars?
Satanists acknowledge that “survival is the highest law.”
Therefore, if the act of vengeance would compromise survival (or one’s raison d’être), than vengeance would be short-sighted and futile.
One’s survival and quality of life always trump vengeance.
Again, we can apply the maxim of “indulgence, NOT compulsion,” even to an act of revenge.
If vengeance is possible, legal, and well-deserved, than the Satanist will apply it as he/she sees fit.
Often, in our lawful and civilized societies, revenge will have more Machiavellian tendencies—it might come in the form of embarrassment, or intellectual retort, perhaps some sort of psychological sabotage. These tactics are not unique to Satanists, we just make no qualms about admitting to their use when such is warranted.
The “Eye for an eye” adage helps determine extent.
Now, obviously, the Satanist is limited in applying this particular aspect of the philosophy whilst simultaneously remaining within legal standards.
Therefore as pragmatists, we are striving to reshape law, and establish lex talionis—“law of retaliation.”
In other words, we assert that the punishment should indeed fit the crime.
The current system is broken and a mockery of justice. Repeat felons—often violent—recieve lenient sentences, and become numbers lost in the high recidivism rates; released just to commit the same crimes at the expense of productive, peaceful members of society. Likewise, claims of false victimization are commonplace, so often rewarded, financially or otherwise, at the expense of the undeserving. The current legal system, based upon Judeo-Christian morals, is largely a gross failure.
We posit “Responsibility to the responsible.”
As for the concept of forgiveness… doesn’t the right to grant such belong solely to the persons who were damaged?
Satanism is not a religion of “thou shalt” doctrine.
If an individual feels that forgiveness is appropriate and prudent, He is always free to extend such.
Vengeance is not mandatory.
Context and personal experience/perspective are always pertinent factors.