Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard

Ethics – Part 2

Scientology 1.0.0 – chapter 35

---

Ethics and morals are not the same thing. I understand that some may view this assertion as hair-splitting, but it’s possible that a broad understanding of the reasons for this distinction could lead to a more utilitarian perspective on the age-old questions of good and evil.

---

Dwindling spirals

History reveals that societies appear to undergo cycles. Initially, they emerge, thrive, reach a transitional phase, and then, as time progresses, they die off. This cycle seems to be a natural part of evolution, but there is a variation that may be avoidable, resulting in less catastrophic changes than we have seen in the past 12,000 years.

Initially, the society or group exhibits moral vigilance, followed by a conservative phase that ultimately descends into decadence. Then, in their weakened states, they die off due to various preventable causes. While some societies manage to revive some form of enforced morality, they eventually fail anyway. Grim.

At that corrupt stage, moral codes become diluted, dispensable, and then nonexistent; behaviours develop that are just plain bad for society as a whole, and group cohesion deteriorates, sometimes until there is wholesale anarchy. I don’t mean that society is consumed by things like blood sports and orgies (which is a myth about old Rome); instead, I refer to issues such as dysfunctional families, unstable currencies, excessive military spending, and the elite classes becoming too dissociated from the general population.

This chapter could examine the moral decline of Western society, but such a discussion is already on the table and has been for a while. Morality is often defined by what certain groups of people can get away with. In some segments of society, the quality of basic personal integrity is so poor that various genuinely harmful behaviours pass for business as usual.

Spending more than one makes, sloppy work, cheating, profiteering, promiscuity, failure to finish what is started, inconsistency, inconstancy, easy divorce, lying, personal pronouns, dilettantism, substance abuse, poor diets, semantic drift, laziness, voluntary single parenting, online harassment, addictions, consumerism, gossiping, doom scrolling, shoplifting, and so on.

So, that seems to be the cycle: first morality, then amorality, and finally immorality; only the actors and their technologies change. It’s happened time and time again. Certainly there have been instances when moral decay and worsening conditions prompted people to denounce the decline, demand stricter measures and were answered by an authority that restored order. If the authority were somewhat sane, then everything would be fine. For a while and then… fail anyway. Grim.

No, this chapter isn’t about any current crisis moralis; rather, it discusses a concept that could potentially break the cycle if understood, or at least slow it down long enough to implement a real solution before it is too late.

While it is true that various factors contribute to the downfall of any group, any society that aspires to survive long-term must possess and maintain a certain level of morality. However, for any society to survive indefinitely, it must achieve something beyond morals, something which, as far as I can tell, has rarely happened in history.

---

Upping the game

Moral philosophy is a longstanding topic that has been taught for centuries. However, the subject may not have reached enough people to bring about significant change. Alternatively, it might not have been sufficiently developed to be genuinely applicable. Moreover, achieving a high standard of truly optimal behaviour may be impeded by various other factors, including the absence of a philosophy supplemented by therapeutic approaches that, when rigorously applied, could facilitate ethical conduct.

I’m saying, it is possible that if a sufficient number of individuals were rendered mentally sound enough to grasp the principles of ethics (assuming the subject is thorough and comprehensive), moral codes could become less disposable, more refined, and genuinely aligned with a coherent ethical framework, one that reflects an enhanced interpretation of nature. Maybe.

In the meantime, to have any chance of slowing the social decline caused by degeneracy, it might be essential that everyone sane enough to grasp the subject right now learns it.

The first significant step towards this objective involves clearly establishing that ethics differs markedly from morals and is a considerably deeper theme.

---

Conflation

Ethics is commonly defined as the moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conduct of an activity. Morals means being concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

In every thesaurus, ethics and morals are synonyms, but the way they are defined makes them “absolute synonyms.”

But so what? Well, it seems that when, in the West, religion began to be thought of as superstitious bunkum, our supposedly advanced, enlightened society could finally dispense with all the mumbo jumbo — which included our Christian moral code. But what if this view allowed us to think that morals could be reinvented as an intellectual abstraction, wholly based on academic thinking but thoroughly divorced from reality?

What if ethics, already an exotic thesis, being conflated with morals, got lost in the cultural shuffle?

---

Case in point

I am certain that certain behaviors— many of which were considered moral, were never ethical. An example is slavery.

All through the ages, slavery has been normal; it is even a permitted practice in the Old and New Testaments. But, although possibly relevant in its time, culturally speaking, it has never been ethical because it violates Natural Law (Natural Laws are those rules that apply everywhere regardless of time and place, era or geography).

Natural Law states that each individual has an unalienable right to their body so long as they do not violate the body of another. It doesn’t matter that most societies follow the “might makes right” rule; violating this Law generates an inevitable decline. Any groundless aggression against another automatically invites aggression in return; back and forth, ’round and ’round until… blooey. (One of the true wonders of history, something that should be far, far better recognised as miraculous, is that enough people, mostly Christians, figured out the truth and got their governments to put an end to the transatlantic slave trade.)

There are other morals that are unethical; some, unfortunately, are also taught in various scriptures. Currently, many intellectuals overlook the fact that religion played a main role in ending slavery in the West; however, because slavery is still condoned in the Holy Bible, it might be logically concluded that morals — and ethics by conflation — are arbitrary. This confusion is why understanding ethics as different from morals is indispensable to any society or group that wishes to endure.

---

The rise of materialism

Although the West’s premier moral code is religious, Christianity allowed for the development of scientific thinking and secularism. But such views had a downside. I recounted a CliffNotes version regarding this phenomenon in the chapters on philosophy. Here’s an even more succinct account:

During the early seventeenth century, a significant societal shift began to occur as certain thinkers challenged the existing authorities, primarily the Church. This is the “Enlightenment.” These revolutionaries helped accelerate technological development, leading to the Industrial Revolutions. For some few, however, this dispute was not just about the arbitrariness of the Church and its resistance to rapid scientific progress but about power. By inciting a mostly fake conflict between “religious superstitions” and “rationality,” these hawkish would-be autocrats were able to so reduce the Church’s primacy as to eventually render it almost irrelevant. Also, over time, their wars became more gruesome, helping faith to wane.

The growing cynicism and materialist intellectualism of the late nineteenth century eroded religious influence further. By the end of World War I, materialism had entrenched itself, turfing out God from societal institutions. This had profound implications for morality because the absence of a unified moral code based on religious faith left a vacuum that was easily filled with ideologies that better suited the goals of our overlords.

---

Moral relativism

What is good and evil, and where do they lie? Moral relativism (a philosophical stance also dating back to the 17th century), takes up this age-old question.

Relativity means the absence of standards of absolute and universal application; moral relativism is the belief that moral standards are not absolute but are shaped by cultural, social, or personal contexts. In other words, who’s to say which culture’s or person’s idea of correct conduct is more right than wrong? Answer: all, or none, of course. “It’s all relative, anyway” becomes the mantra.

That moral standards are not absolute but are instead shaped by cultural, social, or personal contexts is a useful stance for those who wish to sow chaos. However, the question remains: if morality is merely a construct, then who or what should establish the boundaries of right and wrong? There are four options. The first three are:

1) the elites.

2) The masses.

3) The individual.

As for the reshaping of society by an elite class, by the 20th century, the question had devolved to the belief that, in the absence of any absolute and universal reality, humans could be “programmed” to behave according to any old design. The result is the socialist idea of “tabula rasa”, that people are blank slates at birth; all one needs to do is dictate their agenda. This point is illustrated by modern education, which views children as machine-like; schools are redesigned based on the assembly-line model that has proven so successful in industrialised societies.

Certain circles within the field of mental therapy also adopted the psychological version of moral relativity. These practitioners, noting that their patients often experienced “feelings of deep guilt,” developed therapies aimed at easing the moral constraints imposed on them by society. The underlying premise is that, since all morality is considered relativistic, patients can ultimately decide for themselves what is right and wrong and voilà!—no guilt. Thus, we now see an elite class promoting the notion that individuals alone can childishly determine their reality: “my ‘truth’!”

Simultaneously, academia also adopted this idea, allowing the pseudo-philosophy to spread throughout all institutions, including church and state, as well as an increasing majority of populations. For example, one can recognise the effect on American culture of the widespread acceptance of “multiculturalism” (“all cultures are equal,” except those that revere its Constitution, of course).

Moral relativity serves as a useful tool for persuading others to accept the dismantling of an Anglo-Saxon Protestant society that values personal responsibility and autonomy in favour of an alternative framework.

An alternative framework that, quite naturally, will necessitate the centralisation of political and economic power.

---

Authoritarianism

So, if all moral codes are equally invalid, then anything goes. “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,” or “Do your own thing, man,” as Crowley is understood by more recent generations. Enlightenment Individualism stood on its ear—the self above all other considerations—and the list of now normalised narcissistic behaviours grows longer and longer, all cheered on by the ever more strident masses.

As one person’s pursuit of “their own thing” interferes with another’s, an iron fist is eventually summoned by the society itself to restore order, and, if said authority happens to be any of those materialist masters, they will finally gain the dominance they have been drooling after for centuries and become the permanent custodians of society.

So, that’s the plan: relativism eradicates the Christian moral code, chaos ensues (another world war or some other faked calamity), and a central power restores order, probably modelled on the Chinese system. Numerous weaponised technologies will come into play, such as social credit scores and a central bank digital currency — requiring their versions of AI to coordinate the whole show — will help enforce a new, top-down moral code known as “rules for thee but not for me,” such has never existed in recorded history.

---

Morals

If ethics is understood as a separate subject from morals, it could make this wholesale redesign of society far more difficult.

Looking around, I found this on Wikipedia: “The terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ are usually used interchangeably, but some philosophers distinguish between the two (aha!). According to one view, morality focuses on what social obligations people have, while ethics is broader and includes ideas about what is good and how to lead a meaningful life.”

Such discernment might allow man’s further evolution to become wise enough to be trusted with advanced technologies (as well as easily spot the bad actors who are constantly trying to insert themselves “for the good of society”).

However, Scientology 1.0.0 makes a far clearer distinction between ethics and morals.

First, its definition of morals: a code of good conduct laid down out of the experience of the race (or group) to serve as a uniform yardstick for the conduct of individuals and groups. Further: “Codification has its place, but morals are actually laws and are therefore, to some degree, arbitrary in that they can continue beyond their usefulness.”

---

Ethics

Moral philosophy emerges after there has been a long track record of various moral codes. However, many of those codes are arbitrary, as asserted by elite intellectuals. There are thousands of these codes all over the world, many of them mostly benign. However, this situation can lead to significant disagreement regarding the most effective methods for ensuring survival.

In Ancient Greece, however, the best thinkers reached a point of evolution where they observed what truly works for achieving optimal survival; these philosophers identified factors that disregarded arbitrary elements and instead focused on direct causes related to improved conditions. These would be the codes that relate directly to Natural Law and are, therefore, not arbitrary.

These sages even eventually began to recognise the facility of logic—the power they used to discover those causal factors and delineate those universal structures, which, if adhered to, produced “the good life.”

Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

The definition of ‘principle’ is a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a chain of reasoning.

Later the Enlightenment philosophers emphasised the importance of reason in conducting human affairs.

Reason is the faculty of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.

Now here is the Scientology 1.0.0 definition of ethics: rationality toward the highest level of survival for the individual, the group, and mankind, and the other dynamics taken collectively.

Rationality is the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Therefore, ethics is reason.

This, indeed, is a horse of a different colour.

Ethics looks beyond customs and rites, as important as they are. While morals are vital to the proper order of any society, ethics deals with the underlying principles of proper conduct to achieve potentially infinite survival. If we understand and adhere to these principles, we can be wise, regardless of time and place, era, or geography.

But, as the above definition indicates, achieving such wisdom is impossible without acknowledging all the dynamics collectively.

(By the way, the ability to reason fully only kicks in at 4.0. Analytical thought, exemplified by “2 + 2 = 4,” possibly leads one to the assumption that this type of thinking represents the highest level of mental processing. In actuality, reason evolves into aesthetics, intuition, and just plain knowing without the use of any form of computation, especially as one reaches 8.0 and higher.)

---

Ground of Being

So it’s back to that question: who or what gets to define right and wrong?

The fourth option is the 8th dynamic.

The Scientology definition of ethics mentions the dynamics. To ensure the long-term survival of the individual, all groups, and mankind, one must take all the dynamics into account, which includes the 8th (Chapter 10), as without it, there is nothing — (Chapter 2).

When the 8th dynamic is understood as the order behind all things, no one, especially an elite (often motivated by power), the masses (usually crippled by groupthink), or the individual (possibly biased by ego), can have the final say. The 8th dynamic holds ultimate authority, as comprehending and aligning to it could be the very definition of ‘reason’ and, consequently, ‘ethics’.

The biases of any group or individual can easily justify such abominations as slavery, but as soon as reason is applied to long-term survival calculations, such violations of Natural Law come to light and might be discarded.

All religions have common denominators that, when adhered to, result in potentially infinite survival. If observers are unable to separate the less true stuff from the more true stuff, as some earlier intellectuals failed to do, thereby chucking babies out with bathwater, that’s on them.

Every culture shares the dynamics, although they classify them differently. Still, the dynamics are universal, especially the 8th, which is often identified as all sorts of anthropomorphisms and thus can convey the impression that different cultures are talking about dissimilar things. But drop the 8th dynamic, whatever it may be called, and watch any group or individual plummet down the Tone Scale, and whatever morality there is eventually fades away.

---

Balance and flow

This may seem like I’m saying the 8th dynamic is senior to the others; I’m not. I’m saying that it cannot be dropped from consideration the way it has been in our secular society without inviting extinction.

I suppose the point to know is, although hierarchies exist all through nature, there is no hierarchy of the dynamics, as the dynamics are a map delineating the order (8 is first, 7 is second and so on) and fields in which Natural Law plays out. Therapeutically, you can isolate or stress one dynamic more than another, but they are interconnected. Put another way, at the end of the day, they are “all of a piece.”

Anytime you see groups crushing the 1st dynamic in favour of the 3rd, you are witnessing insanity. When individuals prioritise the 1st dynamic over other dynamics, it leads to social decline. Furthermore, when the 8th dynamic is prioritised above all other dynamics, as the old Church pretended to (it is always a pretence to do this — watch out for “fundamentalists” of all stripes), it is not only nuts but also a form of suicide — which explains why intelligent intellectuals opposed it.

The primary principle to grasp regarding the dynamics is the concept of balance and flow (also referred to as “exchange”). Are the needs of one’s family exchanging with one’s work (the 1st dynamic balanced with the 2nd)? Does a friendship or family benefit from being part of a group (the 3rd dynamic exchanging with the 1st and 2nd)? Is contributing to the environment and humanity effectively integrated (the 5th and 4th dynamics in exchanging with each other)? Is there effective exchange with God and all of His creations (is the 8th dynamic in harmony with the other seven)? And so on.

Also, don’t let the simplicity of this map fool you. There aren’t just eight dynamics; each dynamic has the very same eight dynamics, ad infinitum. If you can plot and understand (reason with) enough of these vectors on a flowchart and make the necessary adjustments to ensure your own proper exchange and balance, you’re really hitting on all cylinders.

And that’s ethics.

---

Sum

Morality is concerned with cultural mores that are typically grounded in time and place and include all sorts of manners and customs, many of which have to do with theological rites and ceremonies. Ethics, on the other hand, focuses on principles that lead to universal protocols for long-term survival, regardless of time, place, culture, belief, or opinion.

But here’s the thing. Before any society or civilisation might develop to a truly high level and become wholly wise (ethical), they must first evolve and adhere to a mostly workable (not arbitrary) system of morals, such as the Decalogue and The Way To Happiness, written by my father, available online.

With high morals, people become rational enough to recognise ethics.

Ethics concerns itself with determining the greater good for all dynamics. The lack of this definition may have made the subject seem expendable.

It was precisely this clarity, however, that helped give rise to a therapeutic approach that, if understood and used effectively, could potentially contribute to not only a significant renaissance of moral values but also history’s first truly ethical civilisation.

---

Next: the Ethics Conditions