International Viewpoints (IVy), Issue 33 - August 1997
Aspects of Ethics
By Ralph Pearcy, USA
IN THE BEGINNING, Beings were infinitely powerful and infinitely naive.
This state, of being able to do anything that could be imagined, could be called "Sovereignty" ("Lord Over All").
But notice that this may have entailed (if only through ignorance of consequences) total disregard of everyone else. So it seems likely that this state may not have lasted very long, as far as most Beings were concerned. It would appear to have been a very unstable state, if Beings were interacting at all.
So -- can anyone get back to being "Lord Over All" in this primal manner? That is, can the pan-determined Sovereign point of view still exist? Would it not have to abandon all experience and become totally innocent and naive again?
But we know, from the experience of our present universe and our present lives, that we cannot do this. Even
to attempt to view circumstances from a Sovereign point of view entails viewing also the countless relevant experiences
from which a rich background of past events has been built up, which are available to recall and which are potentially
relevant to the ethics status of any action.
In other words, "You can't get there from here". Sovereign naiveté is gone for good, unless you lobotomize yourself, theta-wise. (Which no doubt is what has happened to many).
But the abilities of Sovereignty are not gone for good. They are weighed down and buried by all the considerations from a vast experience. And in addition, as we know very well, the "experience" certainly includes irrational components, from traumatic incidents, security formulas ("service facsimiles"), and the like. It also includes unconscious components which inhibit the exercise of intention and prevent a thetan from operating.
Besides which, such "experience" may include an urge to ruthless domination which may override compassion.
For example, hostages are blown up with the terrorists holding them, in order to deter terrorism. But this is treating
people as objects to be sacrificed, and the mindset is that of a police state in which a Total Ownership Case treats
the population as puppets for amusement.
This is a clearcut case; but in most circumstances, where the hostages are treated as valuable individual Beings, the terrorists have to be handled firmly but delicately. Ethics becomes a matter of nice judgment, complicated judgment, tricky judgment. And in general, ethics decisions are not a matter that can be solved by a packet of cut and dried regulations. (And certainly not a matter that can be solved by endless litigation, United States style).
This need for rational judgment in the midst of typically irrational circumstances is also why effective ETHICS is rarely applied. It is much easier to pretend that everything is rosy, that compromise will solve everything.
But the harsh truth is that compromise solves nothing. Compromise is the opposite of INTEGRITY -- and it is
integrity that is the only practical basis for ethics, I submit.
But in case this is taken to support Dictatorships and the Iron Fist, please note that the solution has to be sought BEYOND COMPROMISE.
This is because "compromise" means agreeing to invalidate what you think is correct so that the other guy can save face by also agreeing to what HE thinks is incorrect.
But two incorrectnesses jam the whole process up. At best, two groups of people buy time to examine the other's point of view and to develop a SYNTHESIS -- taking the valid parts of both points of view, that is, getting it right at last, and admitting that some parts were wrong.
The criterion for "right" and "wrong" being WHAT WORKS, not necessarily what someone's Scriptures say is true.
And "what works" is, of course, part of INTEGRITY. "Integrity" literally means "all of a piece" -- a Being in tune with his group of other Beings, in tune with his mest and/or non-mest environment, in tune with other Beings and other groups. Where "in tune" implies all of what is said above about applying experience to present situations.
In other words, it's just a matter of "the facts, ma'am" and LOGIC. Where Logic is not some kind of
abstract philosophy but the knowledge of the ways facts and circumstances combine or clash.
And besides Logic, or included in it, there's an Esthetics component. If something doesn't "ring true" or doesn't seem harmonious (unless of course this is put in for dynamic effect), then there's probably an ethical component which needs to be sorted out.
A bizarre example of this is the anti-abortion movement. Killing evidently triggers heavy charge for these guys, and they think without inspection that early abortion is depriving a Being of a body, regardless of there being no Being there yet. Late abortion to avoid producing a defective body likewise triggers "killing" -- they'd much rather have some Being trapped in a malfunctioning body for years and years, instead of going on and finding a better one to pick up. And so on.
In this example, the ethical components to be sorted out are, firstly, the definition of "killing" (and its reactive implications), and secondly, the tricky judgments as to whether a given body is a fit (esthetic) habitation for a Being. But this is certainly not the way most people, on either side of the debate, are approaching it.
This discussion hasn't mentioned games. This is because I think that Ethics doesn't have much to do with games.
Artificial or arbitrary RULES are not a valid substitute for Integrity, although preachers, team captains, or umpires
may try to tell you so.
Let it be noted, though, that there are games which are agreed upon ("tennis next Thursday") and games which are ENFORCED. The reason why Beings are so avid for games and fall for being trapped in them is another subject. Why are we here? Because we let ourselves be Game Fodder for someone. Why? -- well, only you know your personal answer to that one.
Beings like FUN -- i.e., enjoyable doingnesses. This is both an exploitable weakness ("Come and see what fun you'll have in this Training Implant") and a target for suppression ("Find out what Johnny's doing and stop him").
Maybe DELIBERATE DECEPTION is the basic of Out Ethics? Certainly, "Deliberate deception for the purpose of entrapment of Beings".
There is of course a great deal more to be said on this subject. Discussion is welcomed.
Copyright © 1997 by Ralph Pearcy