I don't think the Rule of Three belongs in Wicca. I really don't. Know why? Because it's bunk, that's why. This may sound like an inflammatory statement. Damn right it is. I don't like the Threefold Law in any of its forms, and now I'm going to tell you why. First I'm going to tell you why the Rule of Three is wrong, and then I'm going to tell you why it's crap.
For those of you who are completely ignorant of McWiccan custom, the Rule of Three basically states that any and all things you do come back to you threefold: three times good and three times bane. Problem is, you'd go insane. I've heard of the Rule of Three being likened to karma with interest. However, I feel the concept of karma is unethical and therefore doesn't belong in Wiccan culture. Unfortunately, it's not going away.
Let me take you on a quick tour of the Threefold Law. Say Kevin and I are both pagans, and we're eating at Burger King. He's screwing around and throws a french fry at me. Since we're bound to the threefold law, I must throw three fries back at him. He throws nine back at me. I throw 27 at him. So he hurls a large fry's worth at me. I throw the bin of fries at him. He whips me with a cane. I slash him with a sword. He shoots me with a pistol. I shoot him with a submachine gun. He sets me afire with napalm. I nuke his ass, bringing down half of Maryland with me.
Doesn't work that way, Junior. Newtonian physics, however many exceptions pagans may cause to it, clearly states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Kevin throws a fry at me, I throw a fry at him. You hit a punching bag with 50 lb of force, it's going to come back at you with 50 lb of force. You jump three feet straight up, you'll come down three feet. I think perhaps a Rule of One might be better suited to adapt to our magical works (i.e. "what you send out comes back to you"), but any idiot with common sense and a sixth-grade understanding of physics really doesn't need a rule to abide by. The reciprocity is enough. Besides, all ethical precepts aside, a 1:1 ratio of punishment to fuckups is enough to keep me in line...isn't it?
So now let's deal with the ethical failures of the Threefold Law. First and foremost, let's define the difference between good behaviour and nonthreatening behaviour. Let's use larceny as an example. Let's say Bob steals your underwear. Karen both agree Bob's wrong for stealing your underwear (not to mention I think he's a sick fuck, but that's beside the point). We ask Karen what she thinks, and she says Bob's wrong because stealing is against the law. She is correct. However, I say Bob's wrong for stealing because stealing is wrong. Why is stealing wrong? Because I believe it's wrong. I feel ashamed when I steal, so I don't steal. I condemn others who steal, because I believe theft is wrong. Karen might stave away her kleptomania because it's against the law and she doesn't want to get caught (obedience by fear), but I don't steal because I believe theft harms the victim (obedience by love). However, Bob needs to give you back your underwear. You need it and he doesn't. Come on, Bob, you stupid asshole, fork over the reader's underwear!
All kidding aside, a law that works by fear is a limiting factor. Laws aren't supposed to be there to limit harmful behaviour, but to encourage benevolent behaviour. There's an unwritten law that youthful spirits should hold doors open for elderly ladies. Why? Because old crones have a tough time getting around, that's why. I do it because I love the smile that old ladies give me when I hold the door open for them. It makes me feel good inside to express my love for humanity. If the Rule of Three were to apply, this would mean that the next three doors I walk up to will be opened for me.
The Rule of Three, despite being incorrect, is immoral to me. I don't feel that I should avoid a certain behavaiour because it's going to come back to haunt me, and it's gonna be dealt in spades. That compels obedience on the basis of fear of reprisal, not love for humankind or reverence for nature. Likewise (and slightly off topic), we shouldn't make companies enact environmental protection policies based on the fear that the EPA or some angry hippies are going to storm their complex and bring a bunch of legal charges against them; they should enact these policies because Nature is someone to be loved, not exploited.
Love, not fear, is what this world is built upon. Why the fuck can't we revere the source, and our nature, for what it is...love?
If you got here through a link, click here.