Ethics and Justice in the Field
"When the individual fails to put in his own Ethics, the group takes action against him and this is called Justice." Justice is that activity which a group will use to defend itself from an individual when that individual has failed to use ethics upon themselves.
Of course this means real justice, not the mockery you find in current legal courts or even the travesty applied by International Management in the Church.
This makes justice a bypass action on an individual. When an individuals ethics are so far out and Justice takes its place, it is a condition of danger for that individual.
An individual who is able to keep his or her ethics "in" would not be subject to any justice actions at all. Or should not be.
As it happens, in many cases, justice is dispensed, not on the basis that the individual has out ethics or cannot apply ethics to himself, but on some other basis. Such as to apply pressure to confirm to a standard that has nothing to do with ethics or justice. In this case justice is a tool that is abused and used for entirely the wrong reason, rather like using a hammer to tighten a nut on a wheel.
Hubbard said, "One never observes the forced individual doing a job well, just as one never observes a forced society winning against an equally prosperous free society."
"Where this has been done to an individual that person, who's only experience with justice is justice incorrectly applied, is liable to consider all justice as perverted and bad when this is simply not the case."
"In a society run by criminals and controlled by incompetent police, the citizens reactively identify any justice action or symbol with oppression."
So it is understandable that some individuals, emerging from the oppressive atmosphere of the church into the field, still carrying with them, experiences by which they tend to judge all mention of ethics and justice actions.
Where justice is correctly applied, the individual and the society benefit as it applies ethics to the individual, albeit on a bypass, and thus gives him the opportunity to get his own ethics in. It should only be used until the individual is capable of getting in his own ethics where upon justice actions would cease.
It should be remembered that all beings are basically good, no matter how deeply they are entrenched in bank and enmest. Appliers of justice often fail to take this into account.
People are actually their own worst enemies. There is no one actually out to get anyone. "...a clean heart and clean hands are the only way to achieve happiness and survival." Having those and having an ethical outlook on life will mean that justice becomes academic rather than personal.
In the first place ethics is applied by the individual and not by the group. One can observe perhaps that an individual in the field, or one of the groups within the field perhaps, does not have his or her ethics "in". How one approaches this will depend upon the circumstances.
If it is a prospective pc or student one is considering providing service to then one is entitled to ask them to get their ethics in and even perhaps assist them with that activity if they are deficient in service facsimiles and are prepared to listen. If they refuse of course one does not provide the service as, of course, an out ethics individual will not make any case gain and so the service would be a waste of time. The service provider would be better off looking for a more suitable candidate for services.
Where an individual's out ethics impinges upon the group then that group is entitled to ask the individual to "get his or her ethics in". And if they do, why there it ends.
If they do not then a freezone group is entitled to apply justice. I can here the screams now.
"How dare anyone apply justice to me."
"This is just like the church."
"I can do what I want!"
Yes. An individual can do what they want. If it contravenes the agreements of group to which one has previously agreed to and joined, one would leave the group and go do it someplace else, as, evidently one is no longer in agreement with that group.
It is simple. If an individual joins a group. Any group. Then they become in agreement with that groups tenets and moral codes of conduct. That is part of being part of a group. One cannot be part of a group yet still follow the mores and conduct not of that group. It sounds too simple but it is often very much overlooked.
One joins a group. One accepts the tenets, moral codes and conduct for that group. One is now in agreement with that group and one is now a part of that group. If that group was a cake, one would be a slice.
Now one day one strays, ever so slightly perhaps, from the tenets and moral codes of the group. One then has a choice. One can "put one's ethics in" and continue to be a cohesive part of that group, contributing motion to forward the purpose of the group. Or one can individuate from the mores and tenets of that group even further, yet say that one is still part of the group. The conditions of existence, and remember these are conditions of existence not some whim, would apply at that level just as much as any other.
But, by not putting ethics in oneself, one is leaving it open for the group, in its own defense, as it still wishes to remain a group by its own agreements, to either apply some justice to the individual or expel them from the group.
(This has nothing to do, by the way, with the perversion of justice seen in the Church. That is an entirely different matter. That has nothing to do with group agreements but more to do with enforced agreement. In this case one it could be said that one was recruited to the group under false pretences as one finds that the group is not following the purpose it purports to follow.)
All the policies on justice, ethics, potential trouble source and so forth, would be utilised by the group here as applicable. The application of such justice by that group should not be seen as a punishment purely and simply because a prior group misapplied the same tools. Different time, place form and event and, importantly, purposes and different group!
Ethics and justice are tools, yes. Those tool necessary to get the being to the point where tech can be applied in order to improve the beings awareness, ability and responsibility level, which, by the way, will improve his ethical conduct due to the increase in responsibility.
The tool is not the applier of the tool. It is simply a tool. Differentiating who is applying it and for what purpose is important as this can mean the difference between applying it or not and consequently opening the road up to making progress up the bridge.
Ethics and justice, properly applied, can even produce case gain. They can produce an increase in responsibility and therefore control over an individual's life.
Sometimes justice is necessary. The group to which an individual may belong always has, as it's prime goal, survival and any activity that cuts across that goal will impel that group, provided it is high toned enough, to defend itself against any non survival actions. It is a sort of ethics application by the group to itself but this translates to a justice activity by the group to that part of the group, or that individual of a group engaging in such non survival activities.
How would this be applied in the field?
Probably the first prerequisite to applying any justice actions in the field is the agreement of all immediately concerned. If there is no agreement, particularly on the part of the individual to whom the justice is intended to be applied, then justice, in order to get that individual to apply ethics to themselves, would not occur. Justice would simply take the form of expulsion of that individual from the group in the interests of the groups continued survival.
If the individual felt that, yes, some justice is needed to assist them get to a point where they can apply ethics, or accept assistance in applying ethics, then the policy letters on justice would be consulted by the group to find the best application that would get the person applying ethics to themselves. At which point justice would cease, having completed its mission.
It can be said that most of the people in the field are responsible enough to be able to apply ethics to themselves. Probably more so than those within the church as they do not have the crutch of the church to do it for them. They must be more resilient and stand on their own two feet to survive well in the field.
Justice actions in the field are relatively mild. Those that do not feel part of the group usually leave of their own accord.
There are ethics activities provided as a service by various people and, by all accounts, are of an excellent quality and highly effective. This seems to be sufficient in this relaxed and free area of scientology.
It can be said also that most people in the field are ethical and happy and are pleased to be a part of the group.
After all, they here because they like to be free.