SCN 8-8008: Right-Wrong

This paper presents Section 29 from the book SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008 by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1952).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the present understanding.  Feedback on these comments is appreciated.

The heading below is linked to the original materials.



Rightness is conceived to be survival. Any action which assists survival along the maximal number of dynamics is considered to be a right action. Any action which is destructive along the maximal number of dynamics is considered to be wrong. Theoretically, how right can one be? Immortal! How wrong can one be? Dead!

Rightness and wrongness and the idea of survival are based on viewpoint. Wrong comes about because outcome is not as was expected. One then starts to look at agreements or principles that have been violated. This always leads to conflict and trouble when it is all subjective. Objectivity requires spotting and resolving inconsistencies.

Resolving inconsistencies is right. Ignoring inconsistencies is wrong. Focus should be on evolution, and not just on survival.

After a certain point on the tone-scale is reached by the preclear, he will tend instinctively to seek out and do right actions, but ordinarily homo sapiens is thoroughly engrossed in being wrong. Social politeness, with its violation of the Code of Honour, is quite non-survival. It might also be said, How wrong can one be? Human!

A person will instinctively be right when he is looking from an objective viewpoint.

The accident prone and no-responsibility case in general is so intent on being wrong that he is incapable of conceiving right.

Every person is being right from their subjective viewpoint.

All jurisprudence is built upon the principle that sanity is the ability to differentiate right from wrong. Jurisprudence does not, however, give a definition of either rightness or wrongness. Thus, for the first time with this principle, rules of evidence and other matters in law can be established with some accuracy.

The principle of dynamics can also be interpreted subjectively and does not ensure rightness. It is only the ability to be objective that ensures rightness.

Absolute rightness, like absolute wrongness, is unobtainable. Rightness and wrongness are alike relative states.

One may approach absolute rightness only by approaching the objective viewpoint.



The idea of rightness and wrongness comes from a subjective viewpoint. It doesn’t even cross one’s mind when one is looking form an objective viewpoint.

From an objective viewpoint one is simply interested in spotting and resolving inconsistencies. Concepts like survival and dynamics help, but they are also subject to inconsistencies.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
%d bloggers like this: