Self-Ethics, i.e. how ethics works in the Robinson Crusoe scenario

[B-64]

I've just watched ‘An Introduction to Libertarian Ethics' on YT. Stefan argued that ethics applied only to interpersonal relations. He included the Robinson Crusoe's  dealings in the realm of “practicality” and not ethics.

 

I'd like to offer a different answer, that there is the theory of preferable behaviours toward oneself, which I would call Self-Ethics.

 

A human being is not a singularity in terms of consciousness. We have different egos or personalities, we argue with our Selves, we disagree with our Selves, we change our mind several times per minute and we judge our Selves. I think Stefan implicitly makes this assumption accepting the notion of internal family systems or me-cosystem.

 

If we accept this assumption then it is simple to see that there is no philosophical difference between inter- and intra-personal relations and that the non-aggression principle applies also to relations with oneself.

 

Going back to Robinson Crusoe. He himself will bear the consequences of his own actions, treatment of himself, and he will be a sole judge of himself.

 

More on this here: http://dabrowski.eu/Blog/Praxeological-Psychology

[dsayers]

A very interesting point. Upon consideration, I reject it on account of the different personalities you refer to are all owned by the same person. I will continue to maintain that ethics requires choice and other people.

[alexqr1]

You have no obligation to yourself, there is no self-ethics because of the fact that individuals own themselves. Ethics deals with negative rights in the absence of an agreement and negative rights are impossible to be applied to onerself. Ethics also deals with positive rights acquired through an agreement or contract and it is impossible for you to have a contract with yourself.

[B-64]

@dsayers

The different personalities are not the clue of my argument. The assumption is that I have a relationship/interaction with myself or that I argue with myself. I extend Hoppe's argumentation ethics to relations with oneself (psychology). That is the clue. If I argue with myself I have a preference over my previous thought or action. So, there are preferable self-behaviours. And they are universal because we are the same biological beings. Whether we call them self-ethics, or whatever, they are Universally Prefereable Behaviours.

 

Yes, ethics requires choice and people. It does not matter how many individuals are involved. One is enough.

[LovePrevails]

thing is if someone violates the NAP by verbally abusing me I am entitled to not treat them with UPB in my own speach if I choose to do so or I'm too triggered by their attack

 

within the self this will no doubt lead to worse consequences, if I verbally abuse myself then another part verbally abuses the verbal abuser part etc.

[alexqr1]

The different personalities are not the clue of my argument. The assumption is that I have a relationship/interaction with myself or that I argue with myself. I extend Hoppe's argumentation ethics to relations with oneself (psychology). That is the clue.

I think the clue is "myself".

[MrCapitalism]

"Praxeoloigcaly Psychology" is a contradictory in terms.

 

 

Ethical doctrines are intent upon establishing scales of value accordingto which man should act but does not necessarily always act. They claim forthemselves the vocation of telling right from wrong and of advising manconcerning what he should aim at as the supreme good. They are normativedisciplines aiming at the cognition of what ought to be. They are not neutralwith regard to facts; they judge them from the point of view of freely adoptedstandards.This is not the attitude of praxeology and economics. They are fully awareof the fact that the ultimate ends of human action are not open to examinationfrom any absolute standard. Ultimate ends are ultimately given, they arepurely subjective, they differ with various people and with the same peopleat various moments in their lives. Praxeology and economics deal with themeans for the attainment of ends chosen by the acting individuals. They donot express any opinion with regard to such problems as whether or notsybaritism is better than asceticism. They apply to the means only oneyardstick, viz., whether or not they are suitable to attain the ends at whichthe acting individuals aim.

 

Human Action Ch. 1 - Ludwig Von Mises

 

While I do think that mecosystems, and IFS are great psychological tools to better understand our individual thought processes, they do not reflect the reality of the situation. The reality is there there is only one individual, with only one brain in his head.

[PatrickC]

Hey B-64, I think you are discussing the corollary to UPB. That of APA I think. At least in part perhaps.