I guess I did consider it that completely obvious. If it's causing so much controversy, maybe I need to think about it more.

I'm defining my "conscious self" as the part of my mind that creates my verbal stream of thought and which controls what I believe I would do if I had infinite willpower. I'm defining "unconscious self" as the source of my inability to always go through with my conscious mind's desires.

By definition, my unconscious mind has no qualia / experiences / awareness, because if it did it would be part of my conscious mind (I suppose it's possible that it is a "different person" who has experiences that are not my experiences, but I have never heard anyone propose this before and don't know of any evidence for it.)

When I use the word "I", I refer to the locus of my qualia and experiences, and thus to my conscious mind. I have no selfish reason to care about my unconscious mind, because its state as happy or unhappy has no relationship to my state as happy or unhappy except insofar as the unconscious mind can influence the conscious mind. And I have no moral reason to care about my unconscious mind, because in my moral system only aware beings deserve moral consideration; the unconscious mind has no more awareness than a rock and deserves no more moral consideration than a rock does.

Along with my qualia, I identify with my rationality. My rationality is what tells me that there's very probably no such thing as ghosts. This satisfies my conscious mind, which then accepts that there's no such thing as ghosts. It does not satisfy my unconscious mind, which continues to make me flee haunted mansions or sleep with the lights on or something. My rationality is what tells me that I should ask that girl out because the worst she could do is say no. My conscious mind accepts that. My unconscious mind continues to use all of its resources to hold me back from asking.

It seems vanishingly unlikely that my unconscious actually has as supergoals "Flee haunted mansions" and "Never ask girls out" and is rationally achieving them. It seems much more likely that the unconscious is enacting genetic directives like "Avoid danger" and "Avoid taking risks that could lower your social status", but is too irrational to realize that although equivalents of these situations might have been problems in the EEA, they are no longer problems today. It thinks that "Flee haunted mansions" and "Never ask girls out" are appropriate subgoals of the supergoals "Avoid danger" and "Avoid taking risks that could lower your social status", but in fact they aren't. Since it's too dumb to realize this, I feel suitably superior to it to ignore its opinions.

The same is true of morality. My unconscious is what tells me to value the life of a photogenic American more than the life of a starving Ethiopian, to value the life of one specific person more than the life of fifty statistical people, to refuse to push the fat man onto the tracks in the trolley problem no matter how many lives it would save, et cetera. If another person had this morality, I wouldn't respect it in them, and if my own unconscious has this morality, I don't respect it in it either.

Let me also admit that I have a bias here. I've got obsessive-compulsive disorder. It means that my unconscious mind frequently tells me things like "Close that door there eighty two times, or I will throw a fit and not let you feel comfortable for the rest of the day." I know that feeling is caused by miswired circuits in the basal ganglia. Why should I give miswired circuits in the basal ganglia the same respect as I give myself, a full intelligent human being?

All of my other unconscious urges seem closer to that urge to close the door eighty-two times than they do to anything rational or worth respecting.