Talk:Ethics (Scientology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ethics (Scientology) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

	Scientology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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:

1. self
2. family
3. groups of people
4. mankind
5. Life
6. the physical universe
7. spiritual existence
8. The Supreme Being -- Terryeo 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] 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))

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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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