Talk:Scientology ethics and justice

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology ethics and justice article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Scientology Ethics — Scientology Ethics → Ethics (Scientology) – Jargon terms should be under their actual names followed by the term's area of relevance in parenthesis. Nobody refers to "Scientology Ethics." It's always just "ethics." --Davidstrauss 08:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Support: For reason listed in the move request. --Davidstrauss 04:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the word ethic as used in this context the same kind of ethics described in the Ethics article, or an unrelated concept which happens to share the same word (e.g. a book titled Ethics)? If it is the former, the parenthetical clarifiers normally used for disambiguation should not be used, because the word is not being disambiguated. Instead, a natural title should be used, such as Ethics in Scientology.—jiy (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the latter; "ethics" is a specific jargon term in Scientology with its own specific meanings and doesn't really correspond with the conventional meaning of the term. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is not about "Ethics in Scientology", it's about a Scientology jargon term. - Haukur 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ethics, definition

This article doesn't have one. A common dictionary does not supply a defintion of ethics suffiencent unto this article. I believe the definition dictionaries use;

"the study of the general nature of morals and the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others" isn't really understood by most people. People don't see that it applies to their everyday life and to every decision they make.

Scientology mostly uses; "Ethics are reason" (from Dianetics and Technical dictionary, page 146, def 2. and a person's level of OTness can be defined as "the number of dynamics a person can compute on." Of course this idea is clear and obvious if a person first has the ideas of the dynamics of existence. Terryeo 01:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a sentence from the beginning of the article, which is giving you a definition: "Ethics may be defined as the actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued survival across the dynamics." Further, have a look at Good and Evil. This should give you a concept about ethics. Wolfgang 89.15.156.168 (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

Since every other sentence was tagged "citation needed", I've completely rewritten the article with direct citations. It still needs some more critical views, though . wikipediatrix 18:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 'Antisocial Personalities'

I had changed:

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]

into

The Potential Trouble Source, or PTS, is directly related with the concept of Suppressive Persons.

I did that for reason of:

20:07, 12 June 2006 Olberon (Updated, the version of HCO PL 23 Dec 1965 linked to has not been in use since 1979. the Fair Game section has not been in use (officially) since 1968.)

This article is about 'Ethics (Scientology)' and in this particular article it is to clarify things about 'Antisocial Personalities'. It is supposed to inform what it is about. It is not supposed to confuse with mixing in data that has not been part of it since a very long time. That history part is already addressed in articles like 'Fair Game'.

I removed the Fair Game comment as it bears no relevance to note any of that here. It is also incorrect to link to a cancelled version of the policy letter. It only confuses as people will think that this is how it is presently dealt with.

Far from it, the Fair Game doctrine definitely relates or related to ethics in this organization in that, at the very least, it did implicitly prohibit, by not explicitly allowing, these controversial actions against individuals who had not yet been determined to be acting deliberately against scientology. To see how this might work, consider that in organized crime the controversial tactics attributed to the fair game doctrine are regularly applied to individuals who had never personally sought hinder the activities of organized crime. This is where fair game actually becomes relevant t the field of ethics; it dictates when a response otherwise regarded as morally wrong may be exercised regardless of that wrong. Isn't this - circumstance, that is - the very exact thing that distinguishes ethics from, say, morals?!? Zaphraud (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have user Antaeus Feldspar objecting:

01:14, 13 June 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (rv; none of that makes the statements made inaccurate)

You don't need to note everything that is not inaccurate. --Olberon 06:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamics

The article has a good definition of Ethics as Scientology uses the word IF and only if a person understands the words used in the definition. Dynamics is used but not defined. Seaching Wikipedia for "dynamics" produces a disambiguation page, none of those articles define the word as used in the first sentence of this article. Dynamics is used here; ... to ensure his continued survival across the dynamics. So we either need to define the word in this article or provide a link to a definition of the word, so the definition of Ethics can be understood.

Dynamics, there could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations. We call them the eight dynamics. The first dynamic - is the urge toward existence as one's self. Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary pg.128 Pub. Pubs Org. ISBN 0-88404-037-2 1975.

The urges toward existence are:

self
family
groups of people
mankind
Life
the physical universe
spiritual existence
The Supreme Being -- Terryeo 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, this is already covered here and has been for quite some time. wikipediatrix 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So we should link that word, Dynamics, to there. Terryeo 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done. wikipediatrix 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Sources

Stephan A. Kent's research, published in 2003 in the Marburg Journal of Religion has been repeatedly and quite inexplicably deleted from the article despite its direct relevance and comments directly addressing the subject matter.(RookZERO 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Looks like you're edit-warring without even reading. The Kent info is still there, I never removed it, I just moved it to the criticism section rather than the intro. Slow down and pay attention. wikipediatrix 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a questions on this line.....

"Hubbard stated that all Scientology organizations must keep their statistics of production up, and that Ethics charges must be brought against them should they go down."

I put a fact tag on it, because, off the top of my head, you don't go that extreme as to bring charges against a church just because your stats have gone down. If by "charges", the person who wrote this meant "conditions", then the line needs to be amended.HubcapD 06:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest tweaking of the text looks good to me, as per HCOPL 1 Sep 1965. wikipediatrix 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I felt the way it was written before made it sound much more heavy handed than it really is.HubcapD 20:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now what about the other part you disputed, that someone with problematically low stats incurs Ethics charges (Hubbard actually said "If a staff member isn't producing, shown by his bad statistic for his post, Ethics is fascinated with his smallest misdemeanor"), and then ultimately can be declared a PTS (Potential Trouble Source), a Suppressive Person, and/or disconnected? wikipediatrix 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my problem was with the second half of that line. I don't have a lot of time to pursue this moment, but I'll get to it as soon as I can.HubcapD 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultimately" is the key word here. I'm not necessarily saying that if you don't sell enough books or write enough letters, you get the axe, but I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the Hubbard statements that 1. Low production leads to low ethics, and 2. Out-Ethics leads to being deemed a "Suppressive person" (see the "Ethics Protection" HCOPL). wikipediatrix 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you might be missing is the policy on "Ethics Gradient". Basically, you'd have to go through a LOT of Ethics action to get an SP declare. I don't have my Intro to Scn Ethics to hand, so I really can't give more detail at the moment.HubcapD 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good to know. I'll look for the Ethics Gradient info. wikipediatrix 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Scientology

I am moving this list of ethics "conditions" here as a placeholder, as it was too detailed for the main page. If someone wants to somehow integrate this into the main article, please do so.

From best to worst, these "conditions" are "Power", "Affluence", "Normal", "Emergency", "Danger", "Non-Existence", "Liability", "Doubt", "Enemy", "Treason" and "Confusion". Spidern (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On citing sources

I have a copy of Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and I can provide a deeper insight on this topic. The case is that my copy is for the Spanish translation. Is it still considered a valid citation source? Thanks. RUL3R (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethics (Scientology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose name change (move) to Scientology ethics and justice

I propose changing the name of this article from Ethics (Scientology) → Scientology ethics and justice.

Although ethics is the primary word commonly "used" to encompass the entire field of "ethics and justice" within Scientology, ethics and justice are actually two separate (though intertwined) ideas in Scientology. When speaking of the entire subject, you're more likely to hear "Scientology ethics and justice" all in one mouthful; the use of "Scientology ethics" is just shorthand (abbreviated).

In their own book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, here are some snippets:

In the Foreword: "a practical system of Ethics and Justice"
In the Foreword: "the Hubbard Ethics and Justice Specialist Course"
Chapter 2 title=ETHICS, JUSTICE AND THE DYNAMICS
A section heading: Levels of Ethics and Justice Actions (where they are parts of a continuous scale of severity)
The first sentence in book, chapter 1: "Throughout the ages, Man has struggled with the subjects of right and wrong and ethics and justice." Then goes on to define the two separate terms ethics and justice.

In terms of having named the article "Ethics" (with Scientology in parentheses) it seems like it is trying to put Sci's ethics on the same level as the article Ethics (moral philosophy). However, Scientology's brand of ethics and justice have less in common with moral philosophy, and more in common with production quotas, discipline, compliance, confessions, interrogations, Captain's masts and court-martials.

As such, and because in Scientology the correct term is "Scientology ethics and justice", I propose changing the name.

Grorp (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Rp2006 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RTC Encourages Ethics reports

Hello @Grorp! I see you undid my edit. What is the reason? On this RTC webpage it indeed encouraged people to write reports MATTERS OF RTC CONCERN - Religious Technology Center. Thank you! - Uncreatethetaatwill (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided was a WP:PRIMARY source, which has limited use in Wikipedia under strict guidelines. In your edit, you added "to keep Scientology working" and "to protect The Bridge" which are both insider phrases of dubious significance to a general Wikipedia reader. Also, the source doesn't say the reports are for that, but that those are functions of the Inspector General Network. About all you could say from using that source is something like "RTC provides an online report form to report ethics violations", which is no different than any company with an online complaint form or feedback webpage. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]