Scientology Ethics

Scientology Ethics, Saint Hill Lecture Page one 001

Saint Hill Lecture Page Two 001

A Talk to Saint Hill And Worldwide Ethics Officers by L.Ron Hubbard

Matteo Rosetti

 MAA Information 001

Scientology Privilege Log, Flag, Matteo Rosetti, Ethics 001

Privilege Log, Matteo Rosetti, OSA, 001

 Matteo Rosetti, Privilege Log, Flag, Scientology, 001

Matteo Rosetti, Scientology, Ethics 001


Scientology MAA Information-Kyle Brennan Estate 001.jpg

In Scientology, ethics is defined as “rationality toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” (parts of life, such as self, family, groups, etc.). The purpose of ethics is said to be “paving the way for getting tech in.”

Notice how that second sentence qualifies the first and frames how the definition of ethics is to be understood and applied in Scientology. In practice, this turns out to mean getting statistics up. If a registrar brings in dollars then his ethics must be correct because dollars help Scientology survive and “get tech in,” and of course, the other dynamics (parts of life) will not survive without Scientology. That is ethics.

There are formulas in Scientology by which one evaluates alternative courses of action and then announces publicly and acts on what he has decided to be the more ethical action. When done inside the group context, this ensures the decision will be seen in terms of Scientology’s frame of reference, and non-Scientology considerations invalidated. The action most favorable to Scientology gets decided upon because it is favorable to Scientology, and therefore by definition ethical — since nobody else has the tech. One cannot argue otherwise within the group without losing cachet.

As the subject of ethics becomes externalized, the person’s own sense of right and wrong gradually is invalidated and replaced by public procedures monitored and controlled by Scientology.

Conflicts of value are held to be an illusion, with the non-Scientology side false and unreal, not really you, just your “case,” something to be resolved and overcome by additional “handling.” If others would be harmed by an action, then it is not really them who would be harmed, just their case. One learns to dismiss any nonconformity as an aberration and achieve personal distance from any alternative source of meaning. If I wish to help you, I put my attention on Scientology, not on you.

This facile and self-serving logic isolates the Scientologist, like the Ugly American, behind a barrier of moral impenetrability, and justifies a pathetic and lonely arrogance. Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, describes it in these words: The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced, by innate shortcomings or external circumstances, to lose faith in their own selves. They separate the excellent instrument of their selfishness from their ineffectual selves and attach it to the service of some holy cause. And though it is a faith of love and humility they adopt, they can be neither loving nor humble.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: