Ethics of Reading Another's Situation

I reckon if you have never run a red light, spoken bad about anyone, never thought naughty thoughts, sworn when angered, lied ever etc etc etc...then you have every right to be ethically strong and moralistic about how readings should be conducted on your own personal basis and conduct...but to me it is wrong when readers take advantage of vulnerable querants and rob them blind or scare them with black mojo ane curses. Nothing wrong looking at a third.party as long as one is not being a stalker or overly obsessed.


Balance, discernment and creed etc.

Trogon said:

These discussions on personal ethics in regards to Tarot and other spiritual matters are important as they make us all think about it.

I guess a main thing for me is "intent". Is your intent good? Do you send someone healing energy without their permission with all good intent; such as "I really feel Joe is in pain and needs some healing", vs. "I'm going to send this energy whether Joe likes it or not!" In one, you're acting out of love and compassion, in the other you are exercising your own power and forcing said energy on Joe more for the sake of the power, than to actually help him. The ends do not always justify the means.

Click to expand...

Don't send healing - however kind you feel - if it is unexpected reiki, please. See above. That night did give me a terrible turn - I would have accepted it if offered, but I really was scared, not knowing what the hell was happening to me....

benebell said:

For me, it's a clear ethical violation. If a person's intent is genuinely good, then that person will find another way to achieve the same objective without effectively snooping and violating another's privacy. Even when we are looking to send positive or healing energy, it cannot be done without knowledge and consent. To do so is still imposing your will on another, no matter how you explain it.

*MAYBE* my only exception to the rule (and it's a big maybe) is if you're a parent and using the tarot to figure out what's going on with your kid (who is under the age of 18). And I can't emphasize enough: even that is a big maybe.

Click to expand...

You see you are already making exceptions to the rule

I think that if we are not meant to know certain things the cards will not disclose the information (and i say that because after having experience of mediumship readings and the medium passed a message to me and although i knew exactly what was meant by the message, the medium had no clue what it meant and she even said they will not disclose the details behind this message, i knew why). So if the universe wants to hide/not divulge or not let us in on certain things about ourselves or other people we read for they will not disclose it.

As with previous discussions on this subject it's is down to each individuals' interpretation of what they deem ethical - Judge not lest ye be judged. When you read for a person there is always going to be other people involved in that reading.

Just my thoughts...

DownUnderNZer said:

I reckon if you have never run a red light, spoken bad about anyone, never thought naughty thoughts, sworn when angered, lied ever etc etc etc...then you have every right to be ethically strong and moralistic about how readings should be conducted on your own personal basis and conduct...but to me it is wrong when readers take advantage of vulnerable querants and rob them blind or scare them with black mojo ane curses. Nothing wrong looking at a third.party as long as one is not being a stalker or overly obsessed.


Balance, discernment and creed etc.

Click to expand...

How moral or immoral someone is has nothing whatsoever to do with what is right or what is wrong.

Is it somehow wrong to be "ethically strong" or "moralistic"? No one here is telling anyone else how to do readings, or under which circumstances.

Magicus Textor said:

How moral or immoral someone is has nothing whatsoever to do with what is right or what is wrong.

Is it somehow wrong to be "ethically strong" or "moralistic"? No one here is telling anyone else how to do readings, or under which circumstances.

Click to expand...

In a way, it is, if you define what you feel so strongly against as a "violation," "theft" or any other descriptions used in this thread. If one commits a violation then by definition one is a violator. The meaning of moralistic implies "holier than thou" while ethically strong is a matter of personal opinion. Most people on the forum, myself included, would be burned at the stake by "morally strong" people for any number of reasons, Tarot being the least "sinful" of them, so can we really allow ourselves to use words like violation or moral?

ETA: Even the Pagan rule of "do no harm" is, as far as I know, open to interpretation as to what constitutes harm.

closrapexa said:

In a way, it is, if you define what you feel so strongly against as a "violation," "theft" or any other descriptions used in this thread. If one commits a violation then by definition one is a violator. The meaning of moralistic implies "holier than thou" while ethically strong is a matter of personal opinion. Most people on the forum, myself included, would be burned at the stake by "morally strong" people for any number of reasons, Tarot being the least "sinful" of them, so can we really allow ourselves to use words like violation or moral?

Click to expand...

I don't think you mean "moralistic", then, but those with a Christian perspective.

I am "morally strong" about stealing being wrong. I don't do it, period. I am also morally strong about not killing people. Does that mean I am among those who wuld burn you at the stake, especially when I'm a Tarot reader myself? After all, your statement was that those who are morally strong would burn Tarot readers at the stake.

But I'm not seeing any "holier than thou" attitudes. Each of us is sharing an opinion; none are telling anyone else what the other's opinion should be. For myself, I believe that to do a reading without permission is to violate that person's soul/energy. But I am not telling you that you have to believe that, too, or that you are wrong for doing readings without permission.

My point was that morals are subjective. The Inquisition was for its time and in its own eyes, very moral. Christian values are a type of morality, hedonism is another. A girl wearing a skimpy dress is the height of immorality in certain cultures, while in others wearing clothes at all is a faux pas. If you were Aztec, immorality was not sacrificing hundreds of babies on a pyre.

My issue is not with whether you do readings about others or not, but with the classification of it as a violation in objective moral terms. One is never morally strong in an objective sense; the most one can be is having strong convictions. These are merely convictions, and an objectively moral person they do not make.

Personally, as soon as someone questions anything, it stems back to your own belief syatem and therefore a combination of factors including morals and ethics etc.

When we walk pass a stranger straight away we internally judge that person or sum him/her up as it is just human nature to do that even if unintentionally.

All of us judge and scrutinise therefore we as functioning humans decide what we like what we dont like, what is acceptable and what isnt, what is right and what isnt.

Questioning ethics about 3rd party readings is no different.

Ethics vs. Morals

I'm not sure if this helps, but I'd like to pass it on. It's not related to tarot directly. My regular profession requires compliance to a code of ethics. So back in school, we all need to take a course on ethics. My ethics professor explained it well, I think:

There is a clear difference between ethics and morals. Ethics are codified rules that everyone in your profession have agreed to abide by. They could have nothing to do with your morals. You set your own moral paradigms and live by them, but when you are practicing as this particular professional, you must set aside parts of your moral paradigm, especially when they conflict with ethics, and comply with ethics. If you refuse, then don't practice in this profession. Because when you take that oath, you are vowing that you will follow this ethical code of conduct, whether or not it parallels your moral code.

In every profession we face tough choices between ethics and morals. Hope that at least helps for the purpose of furthering this very interesting discussion.

closrapexa said:

My point was that morals are subjective. The Inquisition was for its time and in its own eyes, very moral. Christian values are a type of morality, hedonism is another. A girl wearing a skimpy dress is the height of immorality in certain cultures, while in others wearing clothes at all is a faux pas. If you were Aztec, immorality was not sacrificing hundreds of babies on a pyre.

My issue is not with whether you do readings about others or not, but with the classification of it as a violation in objective moral terms. One is never morally strong in an objective sense; the most one can be is having strong convictions. These are merely convictions, and an objectively moral person they do not make.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you there. Any time morals are imposed on another, free will has been compromised. Hopefully you do not think that is what is happeing here.

However, I can freely think that for myself, to do a reading without permission is to violate that soul. That does not mean that I condemn others who do it.

Just like, I think that to believe in an objective hell is stupid, but I don't condemn Christians who believe in it. My wife comes from a more Christian worldview, while I come from a more occult/new-age worldview, but we meet in the middle and work quite well. I believe in non-duality, but she isn't sure what she thinks of it yet. There is no condemnation or "shoulds".