L. Ron Hubbard was keenly aware that life in an immoral society could be much worse than simply difficult. He understood that just as every culture in every age has relied on a moral code to provide broad guidelines for conduct that were conducive to survival, so does our own culture desperately need such a code by which we may live. So, he set out to write a new moral code, one that was based not on any religion, but on common sense; one that appealed to man's good reason and his natural inclination towards better survival for himself and his fellow man.

Such a non-religious, common sense moral code as The Way to Happiness book had not been created before. It became instantly popular. Enthusiastically endorsed by civic leaders, educators, youth counselors and parents, tens of millions of copies of this book are now in circulation in many different languages all over the world. People of all ages have begun to apply its simple truths to help point the way so those they love and care about can lead less dangerous and happier lives.

Romantic novels and television teach us that the hero always wins and that good always triumphs. But it appears that the hero doesn't always triumph. On a shorter view we can see villainy triumphing all about us. The truth of the matter is that the villainy is sooner or later going to lose. One cannot go through life victimizing one's fellow beings and wind up anything but trapped—the victim himself.

However, one doesn't observe that in the common course of life. One sees the villains succeeding everywhere, evidently amassing money, cutting their brother's throat, receiving the fruits of the courts and coming to rule over men.

Without looking at the final consequence of this, which is there just as certainly as the sun rises and sets, one begins to believe that evil triumphs whereas one has been taught that only good triumphs. This can cause the person himself to have a failure and can actually cause his downfall.

As for ideals, as for honesty, as for one's love of one's fellow man, one cannot find good survival for one or for man where these things are absent.

The criminal does not survive well. The average criminal spends the majority of his adult years caged like some wild beast and guarded from escape by the guns of good marksmen.

A man who is known to be honest is awarded survival—good jobs, good friends. And the man who has his ideals, no matter how thoroughly he may be persuaded to desert them, survives well only so long as he is true to those ideals.

Have you ever seen a doctor who, for the sake of personal gain, begins to secretly attend criminals or peddle dope? That doctor does not survive long after his ideals are laid aside.

Ideals, morals, ethics, all fall within this understanding of survival. One survives so long as he is true to himself, his family, his friends, the laws of the universe. When he fails in any respect, his survival is cut down.

In the modern dictionary we find that ethics are defined as "morals" and morals are defined as "ethics." These two words are not interchangeable.

Morals should be defined as a code of good conduct laid down out of the experience of the race to serve as a uniform yardstick for the conduct of individuals and groups.

Morals are actually laws.

The origin of a moral code comes about when it is discovered through actual experience that some act is more non-survival than pro-survival. The prohibition of this act then enters into the customs of the people and may eventually become a law.

In the absence of extended reasoning powers, moral codes, so long as they provide better survival for their group, are a vital and necessary part of any culture.

Morals, however, become burdensome and protested against when they become outmoded. And although a revolt against morals may have as its stated target the fact that the code no longer is as applicable as it once was, revolts against moral codes generally occur because individuals of the group or the group itself has become unethical to a point where it wishes to practice license against these moral codes, not because the codes themselves are unreasonable.

If a moral code were thoroughly reasonable, it could, at the same time, be considered thoroughly ethical. But only at this highest level could the two be called the same.

The ultimate in reason is the ultimate in survival.

Ethical conduct includes the adherence to the moral codes of the society in which we live.

---

To read more about Mr. Hubbard, click here.