Scientology Ethics Debunked

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by mockingbird, May 5, 2019.

View Users: View Users
  1. mockingbird

    mockingbird Silver Meritorious Patron

    A central point in Scientology is "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics." Hubbard took the idea of "greatest good for greatest number" from utilitarianism.

    He avoided people examining the idea as it is and seeing its many flaws by adding a term he added to redefine it and confuse them. It felt like a new idea because he added the vague term "dynamics" which itself has confusing terms like "theta" in its definition and "theta" has multiple confusing definitions with other Scientology terms in its definition to send a poor Scientology student chasing a word chain endlessly getting confused by contradictions piling up on one another with no resolution in sight.

    Hubbard featured the idea in his formula for the ethics condition of doubt which is a major factor in Scientology. It is in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book and on basic courses every Scientology staff member and Sea Org member take early in their training and in several courses public Scientologists take at the beginning of their training as well.

    It is a cornerstone of Scientology and virtually every Scientologist learns it and is encouraged to apply it.

    "When one cannot make up one's mind as to an individual, a group, organization or project a condition of Doubt exists. The formula is:

    Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that individual, group, project or organization brushing aside all bias and rumor.
    Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organization.
    Decide on the basis of "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" whether or not it should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped.
    Evaluate oneself or one's own group, project or organization as to intentions and objectives.
    Evaluate one's own or one's group, project or organization's statistics.
    Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides.
    Do everything possible to improve the actions and statistics of the person, group, project or organization one has remained in or joined.
    Suffer on up through the conditions in the new group if one has changed sides, or the conditions of the group one has remained in if wavering from it has lowered one's status. " Ron Hubbard Introduction to Scientology Ethics

    So, it is used to decide who to help and who to destroy. Not a light matter.

    But here is the thing - even in the original form it has BEFORE Hubbard plagiarized itit, altered it and repackaged it to be part of Scientology it had flaws so glaring NO ONE has ever been able to make it PRACTICAL. But only looking at the history of it as utilitarianism exposes this gaping flaw.

    Once you look at that, it is clear that it never was a workable idea, not even a little bit.

    Here is a short video of about nine minutes in which the idea is explained and to my mind debunked.

     
  2. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    The hubbard version of ethics wasn't meant to be especially practical or workable for the individual doing the ethics trip (though we were indoctrinated into believing otherwise) ... it was meant to bring him or her back under complete cult control and for that it worked brilliantly most of the time.
     
    • Winner Winner x 7
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  3. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    In the first sentence, you make an error as to what Hubbard said.

    In Dianetics, chapter "The Four Dynamics", he lays out that, according to the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics", an ideal solution should benefit the First Dynamic (self) and the Second Dynamic (sex and children) as well as the Third (Group) and Fourth (mankind). This is in direct opposition to the principles of Utilitarian "greatest good for greatest number".

    Under Utilitarianism, the "greatest good for the greatest number" requires us to subordinate our personal benefits.

    Under "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics", a solution which benefits a billion "Third Worlders"(as part of the Fourth Dynamic), but which imposes a cost on myself(First Dynamic), my family (Second), and my group (United States) is inferior to a solution which enhances the survival of MY first three dynamics, at the cost of the survival of the above-mentioned Third World.

    Of course, once Hubbard had his own organization, the above went out the window. But even the revised ethic still was not Utilitarianism. It morphed into "the greatest good for Scientology stats", period.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2019
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  4. NoIdea

    NoIdea Patron with Honors

    But at the same time, the dynamics were not created equal. In a tie, the "higher dynamics" always had the upper hand. If I had to work all night, harming my first dynamic, to meet my quota and benefiting the third dynamic, that was acceptable. I'm not sure if Hubbard ever laid it out like that, but I'm pretty sure he said something about higher dynamics being more important. (OH NO! Verbal tech!)

    In my actual experience of 17 years on staff, doing anything for the first dynamic other than bare minimal survival, was frowned upon, and the second dynamic was just a seething pit of aberration, best avoided at all costs anyway. So everything really started on the 3rd and 4th - helping the org and clearing the planet. The 5th and 6th took a back seat as well - they were just bodies and mest - things best not to fixate on. The 7th dynamic of course was important because that was your eternity. And the 8th was unknowable. So the only three dynamics which actually mattered were the 3rd, 4th and 7th. Doing anything positive for Scientology was a big plus on all of those, and was worthy of any sacrifice on any of the others.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  5. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Here's the biggest issue.

    Hubbard reversed everything. That's the enantiodromia of his "Total Freedom"...which is really Total Fiefdom or worse.

    In all other fields that you find the ethics codes are to protect the consumer from the profession and the practitioners of said profession because the public is unaware and doesn't know anything. It is presumed that the professional does know and is aware. The consumer is coming to the professional for this knowledge to follow and do what the professional says. This immediately sets up a potential for undue influence and, as is said, power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    If you look at any profession the ethics codes are limiting the professionals and giving the public due course for unethical conduct.

    Hubbard completely reverses this. In Scientology "Ethics" it is the "Church" and the practice of Scientology that is being protected from the consumer.

    There is no recourse for a consumer when the "Church" "professionals" call up his credit card companies and extend credit or arrange loans without the consumer being there or knowing of the occurrence.

    I have had both of these things take place personally multiple times. Writing KRs gets YOU in trouble for "blocking the org's expansion" or something.

    These people are just like Ocasio-Cortez...you don't have a moral claim to your money. It belongs to those who are moral. The COS has the exact same frame of thought.

    This is taught to both by a similar "ethics" as is indoctrinated in the COS.

    The same goes for all of the legal contracts that you sign to take a course, get auditing, join staff, etc.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  6. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Cosmic Recyclable

    When I was nearing completion on my class IV training I had a meat headed ethics officer who had just returned from EO training in LA LA land, assign me a condition of doubt or liability, I forget which.
    His reasons were because as he put it "I just don't see the same level of dedication from you that I and others feel, you're kind of a dilettante".
    Plus he was doing a burn from all the screwing around his girlfriend did within the group while he was away, one of her boyfriends on the side was my auditor during my early auditing.
    I had refused to join staff and make Scientology my actual life when I only intended for it to be a tool for an enhanced life.
    The staff putting in long hours for little or no pay got rubbed the wrong way by public Scientologists who had lives, girlfriends, motorcycles and the time to enjoy it all.
    He never got anywhere with the condition assignment because I told him to shove it up his ass and as I was the only public on auditor training they couldn't afford to crash their student stats by derailing my training as such.
    But this was in the late 70's and I doubt I could have got away with that in the years yet to come.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • List
  7. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    Like I said earlier, the Dianetics version of "greatest good" was done before Hubbard had his own organizations. Once he had organizations making money for him, it was all about "greatest good for Hubbard's Gross Income". The thing about "higher dynamics" was just the hand-waving that was used to rationalize it.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  8. Karakorum

    Karakorum supressively sensible

    The utilitarian principle taken as a whole is useless in most situations, as it requires a birds-eye-view of the whole situation and the sort of computing power nobody has. LRH version suffers from the same, both can be used to obfuscate and confuse people if you present and use them correctly.

    Scn's version contains a valuable element - it stresses prior evaluation of motives, both your own and those of the other. It thus draws you away from impulsive action and makes you try to dig deeper into other people's motives, not to take anything at face value and ignore the surface level sentiments.

    This hyper-critical (even paranoid at times) stance is in fact harmful to CoS, because it teaches members to take a critical stance to the motives of others, including staff. Combine this with the auditor's intrinsic tendency (thank you mom) to pick apart other people's personalities and analyze the reconfigured separate parts from a multipolar perspective.
    These two factors combine to give people the tools to critically approach other CoS members, once that starts, nobody is safe even LRH, you can then deprogram yourself from within the organisation. Certainly was the case for me.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  9. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free your mind and your ass will follow

    This is the part of the Doubt Formula that always hung up for me.

    I never could understand why my choices on how to treat a group I've left were so limited. If I've disavowed one group and chosen the other, based upon applying the formula, how does it logically follow that I should "attack, suppress, or harm" the group that I've left?

    Isn't withdrawing my support and publicly announcing it to both sides enough? Why do I have to injure my former group to honestly rise above a mere condition of doubt? It's nuts, and blanketly destructive.

    It was an early clue into Hubbard's mind, and the many shortcomings in his tech.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  10. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free your mind and your ass will follow

    Boy, does that strike a nerve.

    I had the exact same consideration from my earliest days with the cult. I never signed up for Scientology to be my life. I only wanted to use it to improve my life.

    Thank God I never changed that consideration over the next four decades of my involvement with Scientology, even when I was on staff.
     
  11. I have this strange feeling your loyalty was under question a few times by the righteous and the ethical and the able. If they were in charge, really in charge -- you would be in jail or worse.
     
  12. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free your mind and your ass will follow

    Naw, there were lots of people who felt just like I did. Why do you think recruiters resorted to so many strong arm tactics to get people to join staff?

    Heck, I successfully avoided being recruited even when I was a salaried non-SO employee of the Sea Org. Truth is, they left us alone for the most part.
     
  13. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    If you want to disturb Scientology public, ask them "How would things be if the Org was the government, with the EO having actual police powers?"
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  14. It should disturb them. If that doesn't disturb them, well, words fail me.
     
  15. Karakorum

    Karakorum supressively sensible

    "I sincerely hope this would come about. It would be much more stable. There would be no crime, no war, no exploitation of man by fellow man. People would become more connected to one another" - That's what my insincere words would have been back in the day.

    "I sincerely hope this would not come about. If it does, I'll have to spend my whole life reading all these goddamn KRs coming from all over the place" - That's what my sincere thoughts would have been back in the day.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List