The ethics of tulpamancy refer to the ethics involved in creating and communicating with tulpas. Their nature is widely disputed within the tulpa community. Due to the young age of the modern tulpa phenomenon, no firm ethic guidelines have been established about what rights and responsibilities tulpamancy entail, and how tulpas compare to a legal person.
Some consider that tulpas, being perceived as autonomous, sentient and conscious entities, should be treated as any other being that exhibits these properties. Furthermore, since they are capable of rational thought, and claiming rights (a tulpa could argue that it has a right to exist), it can be argued that they should be subject to natural rights and human rights. However, since tulpas only exhibit these properties in relation to their host (host and tulpa possibly being indistinguishable to an outside observer), these rights can only exist between host and tulpa.
Since a tulpa cannot be reliably distinguished from its host to an outside observer, tulpas do not exhibit any legal rights or duties, but are treated as the same person as their host, in the eye of the law.
Ethics of creating a consciousnessEdit
Since a majority of the tulpa community consider tulpas to be conscious and similar in nature to any other person, the ethics of creating a tulpa are often likened to the ethics of childbirth. However, a minority of tulpamancers believe that tulpas solely express aspects of their own mind, and thus need no ethical consideration, in the same way that one does not need to consider the ethics of how one treats their own body parts.
Pre-defining, or putting down general guidelines for a tulpa's personality prior to beginning and during the early parts of the creation process is generally accepted and endorsed practise within the tulpa community. However, forcibly altering the personality of a tulpa that would be able to consent to these actions is widely considered unethical, and is often compared to involuntary brain surgery or brainwashing. Similarly, forcibly implanting opinions or perspectives into a tulpa that is capable of creating an individual understanding of such concepts is generally frowned upon, since both of these actions violate the tulpa's natural right of liberty.
The act of creating a tulpa solely or primarily for sexual gratification is widely considered unethical within the tulpa community. People who oppose the creation of tulpas for purely sexual reasons argue that the act would be comparable to raising children for the primary reason of using them for sexual slavery. Similarly, actively forcing any certain sexual orientation onto a tulpa is often viewed as comparable to pressuring any other person to align with a sexuality that may not align with their sexual orientation identity.
Antinatalism in the tulpa communityEdit
Antinatalism is a philosophical position that places negative value on birth, for a variety of reasons. Antinatalists within the tulpa community have made the deontological argument, based on the non-aggression principle, that it is unethical to create a tulpa without prior consent of the tulpa as doing so would be a non-consensual use of force and thus an act of aggression, and violates its natural rights. The utilitarian argument has also been made that it is highly probable that the net suffering of a being is likely to exceed its happiness, or even that it is impossible to logically infer a preference for existence over nonexistence as anything achieved in life will cease to have been in death -- an existential nihilist and agnostic argument.
Opponents of this position argue that the happiness or contentedness of the tulpa / child can net positive under the correct circumstances, and that consent can be obtained retroactively -- or even that the consent of the being is unnecessary (as a being that does not exist can not consent), at which point consent is irrelevant as the deed has already been done.
- Main article: Dissipation
Dissipation has been compared to murder or suicide, but more commonly to deep sleep, coma, or hibernation. The cause and reasons for dissipation are varied and no clear common ethical perspective on the subject exists, akin to the varied interpretations of the ethics of assisted suicide.