Scientology ethics and justice: Difference between revisions

Template:ScientologySeries According to the Church of Scientology, "Ethics may be defined as the actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued survival across the dynamics. It is a personal thing. When one is ethical, it is something he does himself by his own choice." [1]

According to Hubbard's teachings, Scientology ethics is predicated on the idea that there are degrees of ethical conduct. [2]

However, experts point to ways in which Scientology defines "ethics" quite differently from ethics in its generally understood meaning. Professor Stephen A. Kent quotes L. Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology) as pronouncing that "the purpose of ethics is to remove counter intentions from the environment. And having accomplished that the purpose becomes to remove other intentionedness [sic] from the environment" and "[a]ll ethics is for in actual fact is [sic] simply that additional tool necessary to make it possible to get [Scientology] technology in. That's the whole purpose of ethics; to get technology in". What this translates to, says Kent, is "a peculiar brand of morality that uniquely benefitted [the Church of Scientology] ... In plain English, the purpose of Scientology ethics is to eliminate opponents, then eliminate people's interests in things other than Scientology. In this 'ethical' environment, Scientology would be able to impose its courses, philosophy, and 'justice system' - its so-called technology - onto society."^[1]

The Church's official position declares: "The logic of Scientology ethics is inarguable and based upon two key concepts: good and evil", and goes on to state that "nothing is completely good, and to build anew often requires a degree of destruction" and "to appreciate what Scientology ethics is all about, it must be understood that good can be considered to be a constructive survival action". [3] Critics of the Church have compared this policy with the dictum, "In order to make an omelet, it is necessary to break some eggs."

In order to make these ethical decisions that affect others around them, Scientologists are expected to use statistical measurement to assess the "measurement of survival potential". Their official website states "with an understanding of how to compile, graph and compare statistics, the Scientologist is amply equipped to determine exactly what condition an activity is in, and thus exactly what steps he must take in order to better that condition." [4] The "conditions" referred to, in order from best to worst, are Power, Affluence, Normal, Emergency, Danger, Non-Existence, Liability, Doubt, Enemy, Treason and Confusion. When "stats" go down slightly, or even remain level, this is actually classified as "Emergency"; "Normal" is considered a slight upward trend.^[2]

A major theme in Scientology teachings is the idea that nearly every condition has a corresponding "formula" somewhere in Scientology doctrine which will quickly address and alleviate that condition. Ethics is not an exception; each "ethics condition" has an associated formula, with steps such as "Deliver an effective blow to the enemies of the group one has been pretending to be part of despite personal danger" (part of the Liability Formula) or "Perform a self-damaging act that furthers the purposes and or objectives of the group one has betrayed" (part of the original Treason Formula, abandoned one year later.)^[2]

Lower conditions also involve Penalties. Hubbard's policy letter "Penalties for Lower Conditions" (HCOPL 18 Oct 1967) set forth penalties such as "LIABILITY -- Suspension of Pay and a dirty grey rag on left arm, and day and night confinement to org premises", and "a black mark on left cheek" for the condition of "TREASON". This policy letter also declared, for the condition of "ENEMY": "Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed [punctuation [sic]]."^[2]

An unusual application of these penalties occurred in 1968, when the Royal Scotman, the Scientology vessel that would later be re-christened the Apollo, ran aground off the coast of Spain. Hubbard assigned the Ethics Condition of Liability, not only to all who sailed on the ship, but to the Royal Scotman itself; for several weeks the vessel travelled with filthy gray tarpaulins tied around its funnel.^[2]

At various times the Church of Scientology has dictated that its system of conditions, formulas and penalties for ethics should be applied even to those who were not Scientologists. The consequences were sometimes self-defeating. For instance, in 1968, a food vendor near Saint Hill who often sold food to Scientologists there was declared to be in a condition of Liability, in part for running out of apple pie. Because he did not follow the course of action that would be required for a Scientologist (the Liability Formula) he was declared Suppressive, and Scientologists were prohibited from communicating with him, or buying the apple pie which was back in stock.^[2] In the same year, the Scientologists would send a letter to twenty-two businesses in East Grinstead informing them that because "these shops have indicated that they do not wish Scientology to expand in East Grinstead," "your shop together with a handful of others, has been declared out of bounds for Scientologists." However, one of the "shops" referred to was actually the firm of a solicitor.^[2]

The Church warns against what they term "antisocial personalities", meaning those "who possess characteristics and mental attitudes that cause them to violently oppose any betterment activity or group", including the Church itself. [5] The Church's official position states, "The importance of detecting the antisocial personality becomes eminently clear when one considers his effect on the lives of those around him", and such a person is to be designated a "Potential Trouble Source". [6] The Potential Trouble Source, or PTS, was directly linked with controversial policies advocating revenge against Scientology's enemies, including Fair Game and the concept of Suppressive Persons. (Hubbard, HCO Policy Letter of 23 December 1965) [7]

Scientology's official glossary of terms lists "Suppressive Person" and "Antisocial Personality" as synonymous:

suppressive person: a person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Also called antisocial personality. [8]

This concept of ethics differs from the common philosophical one because Scientologists believe Auditing already handles the traditional ethical questions. With auditing, typical ethical dilemmas supposedly lose their difficulty as one gains the ability to make ethical decisions easily, often through seeing an alternate path to which one was blind when caught inside the dilemma.^{[citation needed]}

This contrasts with modern research on ethical decision making, where researchers present individuals with fixed choices in moral dilemmas that become progressively more difficult.^{[citation needed]} In real life, one would not be limited to the choices imposed by a research problem, and a person not overwhelmed by the issue or the choices would--according to the doctrines of Scientology's ethics--become creative enough to come up with an alternate solution.

In a larger context, Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard describes the system of ethics within Scientology as a way of ensuring "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics." When the Church of Scientology takes action against one of its member, the actions constitute Scientology justice.

• Scientology Ethics and Judicial Matters official site
• Scientology Library: Introduction to Scientology Ethics a book review
• Church of Scientology: Ethics and Morals links at dmoz the open directory