NationStates Jolt Archive

One more time:


SEEKING fairness and equality in the application of all resolutions;

NOTING the ongoing work which may result in the global decision of the sentience of the cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc);

ACCEPTING the possibility of discoveries of extraterrestrial life through the works of the UN Space Consortium (created by the resolution of similar name);

AND IN VIEW of the Resolutions “BioRights Declaration” and the “Rights of Minorities and Women”;

THE UN HEREBY RESOLVES:

Article I: The words “Human” and “Human Being” shall apply equally to all residents of any UN member nation who have demonstrated sentience.

Article II: “Sentience” shall be defined as “having demonstrated self-awareness and the capacity for abstract thought and reasoning”.

Article III: A roster of all beings having demonstrated sentience shall be kept on permanent record in the UN.

Article IV: Any member of a species upon the record shall be considered "sentient" for purposes of Article I.

Article V: No UN Member Nation may accept as “members” and/or “people” and/or “humans” and/or "citizens" any member of any race that is not recorded as sentient upon the record noted in Article III, nor may they have the rights of such conditions given to them, unless and until such time as the record is amended to include said species.

Article VI: The UN does not recognize any race as not recorded as sentient as per Article III as a "person" and/or "human" and/or "human being" for purposes of enforcement of the many UN Resolutions using those words in their verbiage.

ADDENDUM:
The UN Roster at the time of this proposal becoming a Resolution shall include
"Homo Sapiens" as a Sentient Race.

The Addendum needs a rephrase, I know. And if you want to complain about something, put up what you would rather have phrased there - those bitching for the sake of bitching will be summarilly beaten with large trouts.

Edits: Removed reference to Beastiality at the request of the mods.


given the presence of FT nations, should this be changed to the "Universal Bill of Human Rights"?

I still say we ought to require sentience recognition for androids and AIs, but including such will only lessen chances of passing (so don't). I'll support.

Edits: Removed reference to Beastiality at the request of the mods.


given the presence of FT nations, should this be changed to the "Universal Bill of Human Rights"?

The Human part gets me, since the term reffers to homids... And, I wouldn't even like Humanoid, since that would remove other forms of sentient alien life.... How about something like "Delineated Rights of Sentient Beings".

The Human part gets me, since the term reffers to homids... And, I wouldn't even like Humanoid, since that would remove other forms of sentient alien life.... How about something like "Delineated Rights of Sentient Beings".

The problem is that many resolutions deal with humans mostly or even exclusively.

The problem is that many resolutions deal with humans mostly or even exclusively.

Well, I would say remove the usage of human/hominid types from the resolution, and declare it as right to all Beings found to be sentient (since the scope of the prop. also delineates the definition of sentience)... with that aforementioned Title "Delineated Rights of Sentient Beings"... removes the class descriptors towards race/type of life, and applies it to any type of being who demonstrates that definition of sentience.

Well, I would say remove the usage of human/hominid types from the resolution, and declare it as right to all Beings found to be sentient (since the scope of the prop. also delineates the definition of sentience)... with that aforementioned Title "Delineated Rights of Sentient Beings"... removes the class descriptors towards race/type of life, and applies it to any type of being who demonstrates that definition of sentience.


Uh, Articles 1 and 2 cover that...

Well, I would say remove the usage of human/hominid types from the resolution, and declare it as right to all Beings found to be sentient (since the scope of the prop. also delineates the definition of sentience)... with that aforementioned Title "Delineated Rights of Sentient Beings"... removes the class descriptors towards race/type of life, and applies it to any type of being who demonstrates that definition of sentience.

I'm shocked. YOU didn't read it first? What is this world coming to? Is that a sign of the Apocalypse???!?

Uh, Articles 1 and 2 cover that...

Well, my only contention is the title, on technicalities.... Applying the biological/species type of "Human" and then using the res. to make AI's and all other forms classified as "Human"... it's kind of pointless... just make it "Sentient Beings" rights.... since that is what the prop. is designed to do anyway... granting all Sentient Beings, rights previously only protected in homids.

Rather, to restate.... instead of classifying all "Sentient Beings" as "Humans", which is a term reffering to homids.... merely grant all Sentient Beings rights previously only protected in humans.... with the Title "Delineated Rights of Sentient Beings"...

Rather, to restate.... instead of classifying all "Sentient Beings" as "Humans", which is a term reffering to homids.... merely grant all Sentient Beings rights previously only protected in humans.... with the Title "Delineated Rights of Sentient Beings"...

The title talks about the words "human" and "human being" in resolutions. Sheesh!

Argh, you're not getting what I'm saying... And it's all mere technicalities from my point of view, but:


Article I: The words “Human” and “Human Being” shall apply equally to all residents of any UN member nation who have demonstrated sentience.


Change text to : "All Sentient Beings in UN member nations will be granted all rights previously declared to humans."


Article V: No UN Member Nation may accept as “members” and/or “people” and/or “humans” and/or "citizens" any member of any race that is not recorded as sentient upon the record noted in Article III, nor may they have the rights of such conditions given to them, unless and until such time as the record is amended to include said species.

Change text to : "No UN member nation may accept as "members", "persons" or "citizens" any member of any race that is not recorded as...."(the rest the same)


Article VI: The UN does not recognize any race as not recorded as sentient as per Article III as a "person" and/or "human" and/or "human being" for purposes of enforcement of the many UN Resolutions using those words in their verbiage.


Change text to : "The UN does not recognize any race, not recorded as sentient as per Article III, as having any rights previously granted to "humans", "persons", "beings", "citizens", or "members".

And Title Change from "UN Bill of Human Rights" to "Delineated Rights of All Sentient Beings".

You miss the psychology at work....

(Study Break) Hmm...

Tekania's alterations are more substantive with respect to effecting the desired change.

The title offered serves as a better summary of the content and point of the resolution as well.

AP, do stop getting my hopes up... :rolleyes:

I am attempting to design this one not as Human Rights, but as Moral Decency. Human Rights has lots of proposals approved, Moral Decency, fewer.

I am attempting to design this one not as Human Rights, but as Moral Decency. Human Rights has lots of proposals approved, Moral Decency, fewer.

Yes, take the moral high ground with this one ;)

Yes, take the moral high ground with this one ;)

Uh oh, thread bleeding :))

You mean this bit:



I'm sorry, but quite frankly, this "moral high-ground" crap, is utter and complete non-sensical bullshit... "moral high-ground" is a completely relative term, that has no actual meaning past what is inside the sick and demented mind of the person using the term.... the word "moral" and "morality" is relative, and the term "high" is relative.... neither have any absolute and concrete meaning... I'm sorry, but the description of the culture the anti-CP'ers offer, is a complete degredation of all humanity, to the point of complete unjust lawlessness.



While I agree entirely with the above, I have a different goal for Vastiva - to author, submit, and watch pass one resolution from each category.

Ulterior motives are wonderful.

Last shot - no one wants to change anything here?

The title talks about the words "human" and "human being" in resolutions. Sheesh!

I still think Tekania's point is valid though. This reads more like a definition of sorts and less like a resolution that extends rights to humans (which is what the name sounds like due to things like "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and the "US Bill of Rights").

And just to make sure ... what is the proposal category going to be?

I still think Tekania's point is valid though. This reads more like a definition of sorts and less like a resolution that extends rights to humans (which is what the name sounds like due to things like "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and the "US Bill of Rights").

I think the way it's worded right now makes perfect sense. I can see Tekania's point about the nature of the definitions, and while it makes more logical sense, it would probably be easier for most players to understand and accept it the way it's set up right now.

I have to agree with Mikitivity about the title though, it is a little misleading. Not only that, but it kind of prevents any future proposal dealing with the basic rights granted to humans from using the name 'Bill of Human Rights'. Perhaps the title could be changed to say simply 'UN Definition of Humanity' or 'Nature of Humanity', or something similar.

I think its good, and it should work quite well to clean up the mess of how to classify sentinent genocide and non-sentinent genocide in the Eon Convention. Good job.

I think it sounds like many nations like the proposal (mine does too), but the category is still a question mark.

It was suggested that this is a moral decency issue: i.e. to reduce civil freedoms in the name of decency. If so, how?

Limitation on who or what can be given rights.

Limitation on who or what can be given rights.

Do you mean by the following:

Article V: No UN Member Nation may accept as “members” and/or “people” and/or “humans” and/or "citizens" any member of any race that is not recorded as sentient upon the record noted in Article III, nor may they have the rights of such conditions given to them, unless and until such time as the record is amended to include said species.

Article VI: The UN does not recognize any race as not recorded as sentient as per Article III as a "person" and/or "human" and/or "human being" for purposes of enforcement of the many UN Resolutions using those words in their verbiage.

These are IMHO the only parts that limit rights, but I do in fact agree with you that these are the primary articles of your resolution (bill) and moral decency sounds right to me.


Interesting side thought ...

For long it has been argued that the UN is "weak" compared to non-UN nations in that our environmental and disarmament laws apply only to UN nations and thus give an advantage to non-UN nations. Now it could be said that the rights enjoyed by nations listed as sentient will only be for UN members, thus the UN could effectively hold out on non-UN races that don't adhere to certain UN decisions.

For example, if a race of rock people wanted to pilage the oceans, the UN simply could tell them that if they want to be recognized as sentient they had better volunteer to follow the list.

:)

You could actually be handing the UN a huge barginning chip.

Now it could be said that the rights enjoyed by nations listed as sentient will only be for UN members, thus the UN could effectively hold out on non-UN races that don't adhere to certain UN decisions.

For example, if a race of rock people wanted to pilage the oceans, the UN simply could tell them that if they want to be recognized as sentient they had better volunteer to follow the list.

Hmmm. That actually makes me hesitate somewhat. I don't believe that the people of New Tyrollia would feel morally comfortable denying other living, sentient beings 'human rights' simply on the basis that they are not part of the UN. This could lead to acts of genocide against entire races, justified by the fact that they were doing no more than ‘exterminating animals’. I feel if such a loophole exists, it should be closed immediately. Any sentient race, UN or not, should be granted Human Rights. We will not be a part of racism, nor of biological elitism. After all, are we not supposed to be an organization of peace and mutual aid?

Yes, of course then they could no longer be considered "human rights" but "everythings rights"

And what if Alien life forms one day come to Nationstates? What would happen then? Would they be treated with the same respect that we treat our fellow man with, or outcasts due to this law not defining them as "sentinent"?

I got one point of unclearness here: who is to make up the "sentient species" records? I suppose it is in the responsibility of either individual member nation? If so, who is going to verify the lists? I could write a list of about fifty species in my nation declaring them sentient, who will prove me wrong (in fact, our nation harbours only two sentient species, one of whom are actually humans, i.e. Homo sapiens tarnakis)??

I got one point of unclearness here: who is to make up the "sentient species" records? I suppose it is in the responsibility of either individual member nation? If so, who is going to verify the lists? I could write a list of about fifty species in my nation declaring them sentient, who will prove me wrong (in fact, our nation harbours only two sentient species, one of whom are actually humans, i.e. Homo sapiens tarnakis)??

Well, one way to do it is to make the UN keep a list, but then to list which nations extend the rights to these species.

For example,


UN List of Sentient Species

KEY: Race, date listed, country filing petition

Cybertronian - 2004.12 (Cyberia)
Draconian - 2004.12 (Mikitivity)
Drow - 2004.12 (Mikitivity)
Elf - 2004.12 (Randomerica)
Human - 2004.12 (Vastiva)
Munchkin - 2004.12 (Neuwe Munchkinland)



If a nation wants to claim that house cats are a sentient species, the rest of us probably should know which nation is extended this sentient right to tabby so we can ask them why.

Perhaps we should appoint a UN special commitee to determine the critera for what constitutes a 'sentient species', and any and all creatures encountered who measure up to it shall be considered so.
I am hesitent to leave such an important definition up to the whims of individual nations - the potential for misuse is simply too great. Both in granting and witholding the privillege.

I concure with our brethren from New Tyrollia.

Will elves (including the deep dwelling drow) and draconians be given the same rights as humans by this commmittee?

I hate to say it, but this is a sticking point for my government. I dare say our supply of Spice Melange may very well depend on recognizing the legal rights of these races.



(Seriously speaking, races not included on the list still will have rights in their home nations. If the UN makes a common list, then nations can make additions to the list for domestic needs. So if your nation feels "man and pumpkin" marriages are valid, you can add pumpkins to the list of species to be treated as sentient. <-- I know, a very silly example.)

Will elves (including the deep dwelling drow) and draconians be given the same rights as humans by this commmittee?


It is my hope that this would be the very purpose of such a committee. In fact, I believe it would even go slightly further than that - should a species such as the drow exist in another, hypothetical nation, alongside a predominent human population, both species would be seen as sentient (and thus granted 'human rights') in the eyes of the UN regardless of the individual nations stance on that matter. This would prevent such a nation from denying a species such as drow basic rights, or commiting acts of genocide against them, and then justifying it by claiming that they weren't acting against anyone 'human', and thus can not be brought to justice.

Perhaps we should appoint a UN special commitee to determine the critera for what constitutes a 'sentient species', and any and all creatures encountered who measure up to it shall be considered so.
I am hesitent to leave such an important definition up to the whims of individual nations - the potential for misuse is simply too great. Both in granting and witholding the privillege.

Actually, we can't attempt it because we are not sure what sentience is. There is no actual proof that humanity, for example, is actually sentient. For one thing, any definition of sentience leaves at least 5% of the human race out and any attempt to include the entirety of humanity tends to also include at least a dozen other species as well.

You want to cite buildings? I point to ants. You want to cite use of tools? I point to several primate species. You wish to cite communication? There are too many examples of that in nature. And, with recent experiments that show a bird can be taught up to a human level (albeit, a low one) of understanding, not even the ability to learn complex ideas is even a good example, as we do not know the exact mental capacities of the species on Earth beyond assumptions.

The problem with trying to create standards of sentience is the fact you have to account for brain chemistries and mental processes that are totally alien to humans, such as a hive-mind or creatures with decentralized nervous systems. Among animals humans have difficulty understanding the sources of some of their behaviors and has had to spend centuries studying just to figure those out. Try to get into something totally different, such as the mind of a sentient plant, and you get into a realm where human experience is worthless. How can a mammal try to understand what a plant wants?

The problem here is in order to create such a definition, you need to account for things simply beyond human experience or human capacity to understand. With the majority of the UN being human, I don't exactly see that as happening.

It is my hope that this would be the very purpose of such a committee. In fact, I believe it would even go slightly further than that - should a species such as the drow exist in another, hypothetical nation, alongside a predominent human population, both species would be seen as sentient (and thus granted 'human rights') in the eyes of the UN regardless of the individual nations stance on that matter. This would prevent such a nation from denying a species such as drow basic rights, or commiting acts of genocide against them, and then justifying it by claiming that they weren't acting against anyone 'human', and thus can not be brought to justice.

We applaude our New Tyrollian fellows for their noble intent. However, it should be pointed out, that any purposes, competences, statutes etc. of such a committe must be a component of the resolution itself, which should be appropriately rephrased.

Well, if he wants them in there -

Hey, New Tyrollia! Propose more verbiage!