NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democratic States of Regular Squirrels is debating whether to propose a resolution defining sentiency as a basis for all future and past resolutions of sentient rights.

I have a rough draft I would like this assembly to look at. Please feel free to critisize and post revisions that you feel need to be made.

The Democratic States of Regular Squirrels proposes that a definition of sentiency is needed in the new world order as a basis for other resoulutions not yet ratified.
So...

We propose to ESTABLISH that the DEFINITION of Sentiency be:

A being must be self-aware, able to examine one's own traits, feelings, and behaviours.

A being must be intelligent, able to learn, reason, and understand information shown to him.

A being does not necesarily have to be living to be sentient.

OOC: I'm not going to argue with the definition part right now, as I haven't the energy, but I will note that you cannot say the name of your nation in the proposal. It would be deleted for Illegality: Branding.

I do believe that, should we really scrap all prior resolution, then yes, we should have a definition and should use sapient or sentient or what-have-you word instead of "human" in all follow proposals.

O...oops. Thanks for the imput.

A definition of sentiency is needed in the new world order as a basis for other resoulutions not yet ratified.
So...

We propose to ESTABLISH that the DEFINITION of Sentiency be:

A being must be self-aware, able to examine one's own traits, feelings, and behaviours.

A being must be intelligent, able to learn, reason, and understand information shown to him.

A being does not necesarily have to be living to be sentient.

How would you define "living"?

I don't believe there is a Category and Strength that this will fit under (and no, don't say Human Rights). We don't have a Category for definitions.

How would you define "living"?

The six characteristics; Cells, Organization, Energy Use, Homeostasis, Growth, and Reproduction.


I don't believe there is a Category and Strength that this will fit under (and no, don't say Human Rights). We don't have a Category for definitions.

Are you saying this shouldn't be a resolution or that it should be under something different.

id include something about all sentients having the same 'human' rights otherwise its a meaningless definition. perhaps even include the suggestion of refering to them as universal rights.

Congratulations! You just made a rough draft that declares scientologists non-sentient!

...sorry, I've had a crappy day...

id include something about all sentients having the same 'human' rights otherwise its a meaningless definition. perhaps even include the suggestion of refering to them as universal rights.

I am working on a draft that would grant all sentients human rights. This one would define what sentients are.

Question: If it is not alive, how is it sentient? I think we should include nonmaterial beings as being alive. Even if they have "died" from their physical bodies.

I forgot about sentient robots. I think that because self replicating robots reproduce in a manner similar to cloning, they should be considered living sentient beings.

The Democratic States of Regular Squirrels proposes that a definition of sentiency is needed in the new world order as a basis for other resoulutions not yet ratified.
So...

We propose to ESTABLISH that the DEFINITION of Sentiency be:

A being must be self-aware, able to examine one's own traits, feelings, and behaviours.

A being must be intelligent,
Please define intelligence.

able to learn, reason, and understand information shown to him.
How do you propose we measure the ability of a being to learn, reason, and understand information. Also, "him" should be "it" or "him/her/it" so as to be nondiscriminatory.

A being does not necesarily have to be living to be sentient.
Spelled "necessarily." Also, how can you declare a non-living being to be sentient? What if you were encountered by a rock? It may be a being that is able to learn, reason, and evaluate information, but it may be that we do not have the means with which to detect its intelligence. What would you do then? This also applies to newborns. Directly after birth, most beings are not able to "examine one's own traits," etc. On that note, would you demand that every being, having been born, must undergo some sort of test before declare its sentience? Is a being not a sentient being if it cannot evaluate itself or if it cannot learn?

I find this proposal flawed, but a more precise and correct one is vital to the future passage of proposals, as many of them refer to "human" rights, with no reference to what is human and no consideration as to the possibility that some nation's citizens may not be homo sapiens (as some nations like to claim).

Also, I recommend a section that declares that all references to "human" refers to any sentient being as defined by the proposal. That would make things much cleaner.

Lastly, please change "sentiency" to "sentience." "Sentiency" is not in the Assembly dictionary.


Respectfully,
The Dominion

There's another draft on this same topic. Pardon me for saying so, but I really don't think that dabbling in species-wank should be one of the first acts of the new WA. :rolleyes:

There's another draft on this same topic. Pardon me for saying so, but I really don't think that dabbling in species-wank should be one of the first acts of the new WA. :rolleyes:
Well it would be helpful in determining just who or what is protected or referred to in Assembly legislation.


The Dominion

There's another draft on this same topic. Pardon me for saying so, but I really don't think that dabbling in species-wank should be one of the first acts of the new WA. :rolleyes:

Oy! *thumps Kenny on the head* It SHOULD be one of the first things we do.

Spelled "necessarily." Also, how can you declare a non-living being to be sentient?

Respectfully,
The Dominion


Hayden Seigfried cleared his throat. "I suppose that the ambassador from Regular Squirrels is attempting to secure the rights of sentient beings that can not be defined as living such as the undead, self-aware artificial intelligences, and non-biological beings. As the regional delegate for Fatal Terrain, I am obligated to support any definition that does secure the rights of all our citizens be they living or dead or non-biological in nature."

The Wolf Guardians;13577228']Oy! *thumps Kenny on the head* It SHOULD be one of the first things we do.So we're going to establish the rights of non-human sentients before we establish any rights for humans?

I agree with Snef (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553278); let's resolve on some key legislation to introduce first, in order to build an essential "core" of international law, before diving into sidebars like species rights.

The point should be that from now on and forever nonhuman sentients will be granted all the same rights as humans. I'm not suggesting they be given specific rights over humans, or indeed, any rights at all in this reso, but just to be declared even with humans, to nail it once and for all.

WOLFEDIT: I'm not saying it should be first. Rights and Duties and other things that relate to the nations in general are fine, but before we start passing "human rights" things, we need to point out that nonhumans have so-called "human rights", too.

So we're going to establish the rights of non-human sentients before we establish any rights for humans?

I agree with Snef (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553278); let's resolve on some key legislation to introduce first, in order to build an essential "core" of international law, before diving into sidebars like species rights.

I was hoping that this definition would be followed by an article defining sentient rights. So unless you don't count humans as sentient then this proposal would cover humans as well.


p.s. I don't think I have the law-writing skills to propose a "sentient rights" proposal all by myself. I am hoping that some other nations would help me expand this one to include aforesaid rights.

The Democratic States of Regular Squirrels proposes that a definition of sentiency is needed in the new world order as a basis for other resoulutions not yet ratified.
So...

We propose to ESTABLISH that the DEFINITION of Sentiency be:

A being must be self-aware, able to examine one's own traits, feelings, and behaviours.


Please define intelligence.


How do you propose we measure the ability of a being to learn, reason, and understand information. Also, "him" should be "it" or "him/her/it" so as to be nondiscriminatory. 1

Spelled "necessarily." Also, how can you declare a non-living being to be sentient? What if you were encountered by a rock? It may be a being that is able to learn, reason, and evaluate information, but it may be that we do not have the means with which to detect its intelligence. What would you do then? This also applies to newborns. Directly after birth, most beings are not able to "examine one's own traits,"2 etc. On that note, would you demand that every being, having been born, must undergo some sort of test before declare its sentience? Is a being not a sentient being if it cannot evaluate itself or if it cannot learn?

I find this proposal flawed, but a more precise and correct one is vital to the future passage of proposals, as many of them refer to "human" rights, with no reference to what is human and no consideration as to the possibility that some nation's citizens may not be homo sapiens (as some nations like to claim).

Also, I recommend a section that declares that all references to "human" refers to any sentient being as defined by the proposal. That would make things much cleaner.

Lastly, please change "sentiency" to "sentience." "Sentiency" is not in the Assembly dictionary.


Respectfully,
The Dominion


the grammar problem (misspellings, word choice) will be cleaned up, thanks for pointing it out.
Change it to be self-awareness at maturity?
I was hoping to have some help in writing a "rights" section.