NationStates Jolt Archive

Please consider supporting 'The Subjective Morality Act', now a proposed UN resolution. I have written it in the hopes of rectifying the UN liberal/conserative controversy. Whether or not yu choose to support it, please tell me what you think about it. I can only get better at writing resolutions.

-Naspar Cosif

PS: If you like my resolution, please consider passing word of it to any of your allies' delegates. Thank you. ^_^

post it on here please.

M.O.S.S.

Mooo oink Squee squee!

this:
A) affects passed resolutions (illegal) and
B) affects future resolutions. (illegal)
either that, or it has a massive loophole that makes it ineffective.
in other words, it should be deleted as being illegal or trashed as being usless

Repeal Resolutions affect past resolutions. This just ammends them. Or, at least, that's what I thought when I wrote it. Well, if I want to get the same idea accross, how would I make the proposal better in the future?

Repeal Resolutions affect past resolutions. This just ammends them. Or, at least, that's what I thought when I wrote it. Well, if I want to get the same idea accross, how would I make the proposal better in the future?
three words: amendmants are illegal
read the rules!

You can't amend - you have to repeal the original resolution then pass a new resolution with the changes that you want.

I don't understand! How can any of you know what this proposal does when it's not posted here? Is there even a proposal? Aaaah, MOSSness!

I don't understand! How can any of you know what this proposal does when it's not posted here? Is there even a proposal? Aaaah, MOSSness!
I believe this is it:
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Naspar Cosif

Description: The General Assembly,

AWARE that there are many nations in the world.

OBSERVING that many of these nations have various moral codes and senses of ethics.

NOTING that the UN has passed several resolutions on issues that may be considered strictly ethical onces(such as UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights, UN Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage, and UN Resolution #82: Stem Cell Research Funding).

DECLARING that the member-nations of the UN have a right to legislate morality in their own political spheres.

HENCEFORTH: All member-nations have the right to leave unenforced resolutions that call for action that is considered immoral by the government of that nation; unless the resolution specifically declares that the Subjective Morality Act does not apply in that particular instance.

~The Emirate of Naspar Cosif presents this resolution as a compromise; so that conservative nations will not be upset with having to follow liberal resolutions, and vice-versa. While at the moment, there are only liberal resolutions to be ignored, the SMA will protect a nation from having to follow any future conservative resolutions.

Hopefully this act, if passed, will reduce the amount of controversy surrounding the NationStates UN.~

That is almost offensively illegal.

It is quite illegal. It allows UN members to consciously reject resolutions, a violation of the Holy FAQ.

Well, how can I make it better?

Well, since you can't make adherence to passed UN Resolutions optional in any way, I don't see anything you can do with this to make it better apart from scapping it altogether. What you're asking for is a complete rewrite of the way the UN works, and that just plain ain't gonna happen.

Any questions?

Well, how can I make it better?
dispose of it in the waste and move on with your life.

HENCEFORTH: All member-nations have the right to leave unenforced resolutions that call for action that is considered immoral by the government of that nation; unless the resolution specifically declares that the Subjective Morality Act does not apply in that particular instance.

EVERYTHING in there is completely illegal. Compliance is MANDITORY - NO EXCEPTIONS.

Forget this idea - it's been tried, and both who tried it got booted from the UN for rules violations.

Further:
~The Emirate of Naspar Cosif presents this resolution as a compromise; so that conservative nations will not be upset with having to follow liberal resolutions, and vice-versa. While at the moment, there are only liberal resolutions to be ignored, the SMA will protect a nation from having to follow any future conservative resolutions.

Compromise resolutions get shot down by both sides. And this is not a compromise, it's a demonstration of a lack of having read the FAQ and stickies.

Please, read them before you try something like this again.

perfectly valid points raised by several member states earlier in this discussion - the illegality of the proposal is obvious.

However, the proposal itself is fairly well written. I would suggest the Emirate of Naspar Cosif does take heart from this, and perhaps come back to us with a legal proposal.

NOTING that the UN has passed several resolutions on issues that may be considered strictly ethical onces(such as UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights, UN Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage, and UN Resolution #82: Stem Cell Research Funding).

There seems to be a spreading idea, especially amongst social conservatives, that ethics and morality refer only to arguments related to sex and sexuality or pro-life vs. pro-choice disputes.

Ethics and morality are what we consider to be right and wrong. Hence, the vast majority of things you can legislate on are a matter of ethics. The issue of free health care is whether it is ethically/morally preferable to deny medical care to those who cannot afford it or to take the property of citizens in order to fund health services. Issues of war and peace are ethical/moral issues. Protecting the environment is a matter of ethics/morality, either because it is wrong to harm nature, or because we have an ethical obligation to our descendants to act sustainably.

Quite apart from the illegality, I see no reason to make an exception for issues of sexuality or life.

There seems to be a spreading idea, especially amongst social conservatives, that ethics and morality refer only to arguments related to sex and sexuality or pro-life vs. pro-choice disputes.

Ethics and morality are what we consider to be right and wrong. Hence, the vast majority of things you can legislate on are a matter of ethics. The issue of free health care is whether it is ethically/morally preferable to deny medical care to those who cannot afford it or to take the property of citizens in order to fund health services. Issues of war and peace are ethical/moral issues. Protecting the environment is a matter of ethics/morality, either because it is wrong to harm nature, or because we have an ethical obligation to our descendants to act sustainably.

Quite apart from the illegality, I see no reason to make an exception for issues of sexuality or life.

I agree. All human behavior, including political action, is an issue of morality/ethics.

Well said, _Myopia_.