NationStates Jolt Archive

Basic Animal Rights

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

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Xenodracon

Description : That all living creatures be established as having some innate value and as such deserve consideration in any and all matters that may affect them.

1) Any projects regardless of their intent that may have negative consequences on local fauna must make attempts to reduce or eliminate these consequences. Should this not be possible then the potential damage to wildlife must be taken into account and decided upon if it is in fact worth more than the potential human gain in which case such project shall not be allowed to proceed.

2) It shall be illegal to inflict undue pain or punishment upon any living creature for purely recreational purposes (ex. Animal abuse, cock/dogfights, training). Hunting may be legal as decided by individual nations insofar that the animal hunted is in fact
a. Used for food or other economic purpose
b. Poses a threat in some manner.
c. The method used is not cruel in and of itself.

3) Animal experimentation shall always be a last resort in the progress of science and may only take place in cases that may potentially save or otherwise improve life.

First draft of my first proposal so of course anxious for feedback on how this could be improved or if it's even worth pursuing.

I'd increase the strength at least a level.

Description : That all living creatures be established as having some innate value and as such deserve consideration in any and all matters that may affect them.

Still trying to find the innate value of certain species...

1) Any projects regardless of their intent that may have negative consequences on local fauna must make attempts to reduce or eliminate these consequences. Should this not be possible then the potential damage to wildlife must be taken into account and decided upon if it is in fact worth more than the potential human gain in which case such project shall not be allowed to proceed.

Unclear. Sounds like the only way a project is to be allowed is if it causes more damage to wildlife than benefit for humans. I would drop the word "human" and replace it with sentient being.

2) It shall be illegal to inflict undue pain or punishment upon any living creature for purely recreational purposes (ex. Animal abuse, cock/dogfights, training). Hunting may be legal as decided by individual nations insofar that the animal hunted is in fact
a. Used for food or other economic purpose
b. Poses a threat in some manner.
c. The method used is not cruel in and of itself.

What about military training? Not recreational, despite you claiming it as such. There are many training uses of animals that serve purposes and help sentient beings.

3) Animal experimentation shall always be a last resort in the progress of science and may only take place in cases that may potentially save or otherwise improve life.

In other words, it goes on as normal, only we test humans first and watch them die to see what's wrong.

2) It shall be illegal to inflict undue pain or punishment upon any living creature for purely recreational purposes (ex. Animal abuse, cock/dogfights, training).

Hypothetically, one could claim that animal abuse relieves stress and therefore is a health benefit. Cock/dog fights are almost always wagered on, and therefore are business activities, not "purely recreational." And I don't understand how training is a recreational activity at all.

Make this more specific, increase the strength.

I would change the title.

This does not create rights for animals so much as it imposes a duty on the part of humans to weigh the impact of their actions to other species.

Number states projects that may have negative consequences must make attempts to alleviate the impact. That is burdensome. A requirement that impacts be determined and mitigated if necessary and feasible would be more agreeable.

I too am still looking for the innate value of certain species.

Can bees think? A new study confirms that no, they can not.

Hunting may be legal as decided by individual nations insofar that the animal hunted is in fact
a. Used for food or other economic purpose
b. Poses a threat in some manner.
c. The method used is not cruel in and of itself.


After each of those lines (a,b,c) is there an "or" or an "and" ?? You have a period after b, which further confuses some of us.

If the tests are collective-mandatory (there's an "and" after a and b) then you mean to exclude hunting as a sport, and I do not think that the world as a whole is ready for that.

You also might want to consisder a test of sentience and cognizance, as the proposed British law does. For example, if elephants and dolphins pass either the sentience or cognizance test, then hunting them would be unlawful under any circumstances, because we are admitting that they are creatures equal to ourselves and deserving of an equal footing on the planet.

I just want to make sure you understand exactly what you're doing and proposing exactly what you intend. :)

You also might want to consisder a test of sentience and cognizance, as the proposed British law does. For example, if elephants and dolphins pass either the sentience or cognizance test, then hunting them would be unlawful under any circumstances, because we are admitting that they are creatures equal to ourselves and deserving of an equal footing on the planet.


Sentient in that they are capable of some form of thought and mental suffering in a addition to signs of physical stress is in no way an admitance that they are equal to ourselves or deserving of equal footing on the planet.

Discerning animals based on what we percieve their mental worth to be, and hunting accordingly is auspicious. It sets the standard for disolving endangered species protections, as, since they are not mentally up to par, who cares if they are wiped out or not.

You also might want to consisder a test of sentience and cognizance, as the proposed British law does. For example, if elephants and dolphins pass either the sentience or cognizance test, then hunting them would be unlawful under any circumstances, because we are admitting that they are creatures equal to ourselves and deserving of an equal footing on the planet.
I don't know what the sentience or cognizance tests actually entail, but knowing that testing has been done that shows plants to have a central nervous system and to have a rudimentary functioning "brain" if you will could make this a bit sticky.

You also might want to consisder a test of sentience and cognizance, as the proposed British law does. For example, if elephants and dolphins pass either the sentience or cognizance test, then hunting them would be unlawful under any circumstances, because we are admitting that they are creatures equal to ourselves and deserving of an equal footing on the planet.

Except that it is impossible to measure, as you have only the human viewpoint to go by. Using one species as the standard for all life won't produce anything even resembling accurate results. Plus, just about any definition of sentience leaves out a portion of humanity and includes unusually-intelligent members of otherwise nonsentient species.

Except that it is impossible to measure, as you have only the human viewpoint to go by.

It certainly was impossible in former times, although I'm not sure it's still so, hence my comment about dolphins and elephants.

It's a horrifying thing to consider, but it's remotely possible that we have been living in this place in the presence of entire civilisations whose presence went undetected because the cognizant races were simply disinclined to build things. :) Pretty scary, eh?

I am not necessarily an animal rights activist, and I am not necessarily someone who would want to eschew hunting.

However, I am also not a complete, total, bloody idiot, so I am willing to consider evidence that a previously accepted practise needs to change or stop.

Here's a heavily revised version now based off some of the feedback. I eliminated the first provision because it's simply to hard for me at least to find a way to make it specific. As such I'm leaving the strength as "mild" since I don't think the ones left are as big of an issue. I've also restricted it now to vertebrate species so worms, germs and insects are on their own for the moment.

Basic Animal Rights

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

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Xenodracon

Description : That all vertebrate creatures be established as having some innate value and as such deserve consideration in any and all matters that may affect them.

1) It shall be illegal to kill any verterbrate noting there are exceptions where human priorities override those of other creatures including. But in each case the method used should inflict the least amount of suffering possible. These exceptions are:
a. Use as food
b. Controlling populations that threaten the local environment
c. Pose a direct threat to human life or well-being
d. Purpose of euthanasia

2) Animal experimentation on vertebrates shall always be a last resort in the progress of science and may only take place for purposes of extending or saving either human or animal life. Testing of products and procedures that do not fulfill either of these requirements must be conducted via other means.

3) Taking into account the number and variety of creatures that work with humans that require specialized training which may include some physical discomfort of the animal, abuse that poses a dire threat to the animal’s life or which may cause permanent damage is forbidden. Furthermore, training of animals for aggressive behavior should be strictly prohibited to government agencies.

Do you mind if I ask another question?

To this day in East Africa, for certain among the Masai and I believe also among the non-urbanised Kikuyu, it is a rite of passage that a large creature is hunted and killed.

Would you propose to have any kind of exemption for religious activities like this, or can you imagine at any point endorsing the kinds of historical, traditional hunting activities some societies continue to embrace?

Most cultures in those cases I would imagine actually use the meat for food as well even if it is a religious rite. If not then I can't see allowing an exemption for animal abuse and killing purely for the sake of religion.