NationStates Jolt Archive

Combine Moral Decency and Human Rights

Italy 1914d
22-12-2006, 20:30
Rules on submitting proposals: proposal catagories

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

End Quote

My basic proposal:

The UN

Understanding that every nation in the UN has the freedom to grant its citizens ANY freedoms it wishes, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others,

Understanding that Morals are the extension of a society's opinion,

Recognizing all societies and cultures right to exist,

Deciding that the only grounds on which the UN may limit the freedoms of member states is in the defence of more important rights of others

Understanding that worthy proposals previously submitted to restric Civil Freedoms of one group on grounds of Moral Decency are really protecting the rights of another group,

Understanding that victimless deeds such as masturbation and Gay Marrige cannot be banned by the UN on grounds that they are disliked by a social, political, or religious group.

Combines henceforth, the proposal catagories Moral Decency and Human Rights, on grounds that opinion alone is not sufficient grounds to restrict the rights of member nations;

Creating the new proposal catagory 'Rights and Freedoms' into which future resolutions that previously would have been submitted into either of the above catagories shall be submitted.

End proposal

I was going to submit this as an UN proposal but was told that it probably belonged in technical, so here it be. My basic reasoning being that, what a person does with him or herself in thier own time is nobodies business if it is not affecting anybody else who doesnt want to be affected. I looked through most of the resolutions and I think that the only one I saw in MD was outlaw of pedophelia and it is definetly a human right to not be abused (sexually or otherwise, what constitutes abuse is the type of thing that proposals should be submitted upon). I think that their is a Necrophelia one as well, and I think that the authors of that proposal would feel that it is thier right to have their remains desposed of as they wish, and not have them dessacrated.

I feel this change would make resolutions stronger, and would get weed out proposals instituting bans based soley upon moral opinion before they were submitted. It still allows for what I feel are morally driven proposals, people would just have to justify them with more than "because it is wrong in the eyes of <insert one or more of the following: me, my country, my religious idol/institution>" For instance, one could try to ban same sex adoption on grounds that every child has a right to a mother and a father and the unique set of parenting qualities that they bring to a family. (My personal opinion is extremely against this, but that was the point of the example)

I am new to the Nation States game and apologize if I am bringing up something that has already been discussed to death, I tried to do a little homework and did not see anything about this.
22-12-2006, 20:55
Understanding that victimless deeds such as masturbation and Gay Marrige cannot be banned by the UN on grounds that they are disliked by a social, political, or religious group.

The fundamental flaw in your agrument is that the UN can in fact ban whatever it collectively decides to ban. Since it has the right, you cannot remove the mechanism by which it does so. As they two concepts are in fact exact opposites, they can't be combined as one without disrupting the balance inherent in the game.

Majority rules in the NSUN. Lots of players actively oppose Moral Decency proposals for the exact reasons you list, which is fine. However, if the majority decides collectively that something is so heinous as to require an international ban, they have the right (and the game code) to do so.

Incidentally, the UN Timeline ( in NSwiki indicates at least six Moral Decency proposals on the current books.
Italy 1914d
23-12-2006, 01:16
Okay, I understand, thank you for the explanation. I still feel that in the passed moral decency resolutions there are arguments made for protecting the rights of others.

thanks for the wiki link by the way, that was way better than swimming through pages of proposals on the UN page

Okay, so I just cannot resist: I suppose that my personal opinion is that proposals based on one's moral standards alone should all fall under the "Bloody Stupid" heading, but that is just my opinion, and I can vote against them if and when they appear.