This file is an exerpt from The Book of Darkness, an official work
of the Ordo Templi Satanis, P.O. Box 1093, Atwater, CA 95301. It is
copyright 1991. All persons are hereby given permission to make
copies and/or distribute this exerpt, so long as in so doing the 
contents of this work is not altered in any way, including this
paragraph.

                         Satanic Ethics
                 (from The Book of the World)

Any philosophy must, as a matter of course, at least imply a code 
of moral ethics for its followers to espouse. Satanism, as a 
philosophy and as a religion, can do no differently. However, the 
nature of that moral code will seem entirely alien to those who 
have been raised on the ages-old idea of a "good versus evil" 
world view. All of the major world religions (Christianity, 
Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, and Buddhism) are rooted in 
moral absolutism. That is, there is a definite and objective set 
of behaviors which are "right" and which are "wrong" for an 
individual to practice. The differences between these religions 
come to the fore when the exact nature of those behaviors is 
defined, as well as the latitude afforded the individual in 
regards to a choice between them.

For example, Christianity is very specific in its list of moral 
behaviors which it considers right and wrong (exemplified in the 
Ten Commandments and other Old Testament strictures), and is 
equally specific regarding the consequences of failing to observe 
"right" behavior (cast into the lake of eternal fire, etc.). 
Buddhism, on the other hand, still recognizes a set of behaviors 
which are right and wrong, but says that the individual is given 
full freedom of choice... but is expected to choose the correct 
behaviors. There is no punishment in Buddhism for choosing wrong 
behaviors, other than being once again incarnated on the Earth.

It is significant to realize that all of the rewards and punish-
ments offered by religion are mythic. Their existences are, by 
their very nature, impossible to prove. However, they are de-
signed to play upon the gullibilities and fears of the Masses, 
and in this way something which may not actually exist at all has 
a definite impact upon the real and observable world (by means of 
modifying the behaviors of the people of the world).

Satanism, too, offers a list of do's and don't's, codified in 
several places, including The Satanic Bible. However, Satanism 
does not presume to cajole its adherents with either vague prom-
ises of eternal reward for good behavior or veiled threats of 
eternal punishment for bad behavior. Rather, the Satanist is 
encouraged to look upon every action in a unique light, and weigh 
the consequences of the various possible decisions. In this 
sense, Satanism offers a very relative (rather than absolute) 
moral code. To the Satanist, morality means doing what is best 
for yourself. 

Note that this is not the wholly self-centered, selfish, and 
myopic world view that some would like to portray. By following 
this code, Satanists are not encouraged to go out and steal, lie, 
cheat, and murder merely for the slightest material or emotional 
gain. Rather, the Satanist is encouraged to look at the conse-
quences of his actions in a cold and rational light. He must take 
into account not only the short-term gains which are possible 
from a given action, but also the long-term ramifications which 
follow any decision. The Satanist must be wholly logical in 
determining his actions; there can be no other factors to be 
taken into account in making the determination.

This attitude stems from the Satanists' reverence of intellectual 
freedom. By following the path of the intellect, rather than 
blindly obeying the Will of another (or even succumbing to his 
own emotional dictates), the Satanist forges for himself a path 
of true morality; doing what is best for himself. No creature can 
be expected to do anything less than that.

This runs contrary to the current conventional wisdom that self-
sacrifice is, in some way, noble in and of itself. True, there 
are instances where self-sacrifice (either material or psychic) 
is the most reasonable course to take. But under no circumstances 
would the Satanist (or any other rational being, for that matter) 
undertake a self-sacrifice unless the benefits to be gained 
eventually outweighed the cost of the self-sacrifice. In such 
instances, the sacrifice can be considered more to be an invest-
ment.

This egalitarian attitude, which states that self-sacrifice is a 
worthwhile action for its own sake, has been incorporated into 
Western society at every level over the last few decades. When 
this nation was founded, it was founded on the idea that every 
individual was responsible for himself; this rugged individualism 
and self-reliance was the cornerstone upon which our nation was 
built. Now, however, the idea has been introduced that somehow 
each person is owed a living-- food, shelter, and even luxuries-- 
merely because that person is a citizen. This has been expressed 
socially in the prevalence of begging in major metropolitan 
areas. It has been expressed politically in the entire welfare 
and taxation system which has been in place since before World 
War Two. 

Prior to the introduction of the New Deal and, later, the 
Great Society, charity was the province of the private sector. If 
an individual wanted to give money to a particular charity (be it 
a soup kitchen, an individual beggar, or whatever), then that 
individual could make a conscious, informed decision to do so. 
Whole organizations were set up to facilitate the transfer of 
funds derived from these self-sacrificial urges, such as the 
Salvation Army, and various religious groups. 

Today, this idea has been corrupted. Rather than making 
charity an object of a personal decision, the State has taken it 
upon itself to oversee the collection and disbursement of money 
from those who have it to those who do not. Hardly any notice is 
taken of the individual worth of the people receiving such funds, 
and certainly far less notice is taken of the desires of the 
people from whom the money is being taken! In essence, the prof-
its and produce of that section of society which actually con-
tributes to the nation are being stripped from them without so 
much as a consultation. The beneficiaries of these funds are 
often those segments of society which are unable or (even worse) 
unwilling to contribute to the nation's prosperity. They exist 
merely for their own sake, and their only function in the web of 
society seems to be to act as a weight on the more productive 
segments, dragging them down to the same level. In this way, the 
egalitarians see the fulfillment of their wildest fantasies; a 
world in which everyone is entirely equal on every plane; econom-
ic, social, intellectual, etc. It does not matter to these would-
be do-gooders that the method they have chosen for this work does 
not raise the humble to the level of the lofty, but rather drags 
everyone down to the same, lowest common denominator. 

It does not take a genius to see where this trend would 
eventually lead. Without the impetus of the doers of society, 
society as a whole must inevitably falter and wallow in a morass 
of mediocrity, struggling merely to maintain a level of produc-
tivity and a standard of living that was made possible only by 
the herculean efforts of a small segment of society to prop up 
the vast majority. And why would the egalitarians stop at econom-
ic and social equality? Heartened by a complete victory in that 
area, they could very easily continue the process into the very 
bodies and minds of the individuals. How could a population be 
truly equal, they could argue, when some individuals are smarter? 
Or stronger? Or faster? The imagination shudders at the Orwellian 
possibilities to which this road of "human equality" could lead.

What, then, would be the answer to this frightening conspir-
acy of mediocrity? Before it is too late, the rising tide of 
egalitarianism must be halted. Once more, humanity must realize a 
simple truth and come to terms with it; some individuals are 
simply better than others. In days gone by, this was taken as a 
given by everyone-- the very idea of an aristocracy is an expres-
sion of the realization that all men are not, after all, created 
equal. It can be said that the American revolution (and the 
subsequent realignment of ideological and political power 
throughout the world) was a reaction to the failure of the Euro-
pean system of aristocracy, which had, by that time, failed to 
encapsulate the best and brightest of the times, but rather acted 
as a breaking factor on progress, entrenched and more interested 
in maintaining its position of power through hereditary lines 
than in representing the leaders of the age. The mantle of the 
true aristocrats had passed from the hereditary Lords of Europe 
to a new breed of intellectuals and innovators. The American 
Revolution, therefore, was not a revolt against the idea of 
aristocracy, but rather a revolt against the ossified institution 
that the old aristocracy had become. It did away with the system 
of European Lords to make room for a new system of American 
Lords, whose superiority would be witnessed not by the extent of 
their land holdings, but on the extent of their philosophical and 
mental acuity.

It is entirely in line with the Satanic idea of the ques-
tioning of old models of authority. There inevitably comes a time 
when institutions come to represent the very opposite of their 
original intention. Any organization will, given he fullness of 
time, come to think of itself as an end product, rather than as a 
mere means by which ends are achieved. When the European aristoc-
racy became a mere vehicle for its own self-perpetuation, it lost 
the mandate of leadership which it held. Now, we find ourselves 
in a similar situation. The original ideals of the Founding 
Fathers have become perverted. America was originally a land 
wherein the individual could find his own fullest fulfillment as 
a person. His success or failure would rest squarely on his own 
shoulders. Today, however, this idea has been totally stricken 
from the American world-view. Today, it is the innovators, the 
productive, who must bear the burden for the sustenance of the 
unproductive, the followers. 

The reason for this inversion of what, for thousands of 
years, was the natural order of the world is simple-- the rise of 
egalitarianism through its chief vehicle; Christianity. When the 
leaders, the innovators, became entrapped by the Christian creed 
of egalitarianism, the failure of the American experiment to 
provide fulfillment of the individual was inevitable. Christiani-
ty is a fine tool for controlling the masses; it curbs their 
rebellious impulses and allows them to continue in the delusion 
that they are somehow on the same level as the natural leadership 
of society-- this keeps their resentment and jealousy to manage-
able levels. However, it is hardly a philosophy for those whose 
task is to lead the masses; the natural aristocracy cannot be 
taken in by such an inversion of the natural order.