NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Eternal Kawaii

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that the nations of the world are composed of diverse kinds of people;

ACKNOWLEDGING that people of one kind might not consider people of another kind as "persons" due to differences in their substance or behavior;

REALIZING that for a rational debate on personal rights to take place, a commonly accepted definition of "person" is needed;

DECLARES that there exists a transcendental and self-evident concept, referred to here as "personhood", that is independent of the substance or behavior of the being that possesses it;

DEFINES for the purpose of this legislation a "person" to be an individual being that reasonably asserts its possession of personhood, or whose personhood is asserted for it by the members of its people;

DEFINES for the purpose of this legislation a "people" as any group of individual beings that possess substance and behaviors commonly shared between them that distingish them from other groups, and whose members normally meet the above definition of person;

DECLARES that no person may be required to accept inclusion within a people without said person's consent;

REQUIRES the WA to maintain a record of all known peoples within its member nations;

REQUIRES every WA member nation to submit an accurate accounting of the peoples within it for this record;

DECLARES that any being has the right to make an assertion of its personhood to the WA;

REQUIRES the WA to accept any reasonable assertions of personhood from beings not recognized as persons by WA member states, and to add these beings to its record;

REQUIRES all WA member nations to recognize the members of every people in this record as persons, and to extend to them all personal rights, freedoms, privileges and entitlements guaranteed under international law.


In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Esteemed delegates, representatives, dignitaries. After much discussion, our proposal, "Recognition of Personhood" has been formally submitted for your approval. I would like to thank the members of the drafting committee for helping us craft this resolution. I would particularly like to thank the respected Khan Mongkha of the Empire of Urgench, for his help in interpreting some of the more esoteric terms of Kawaiian philosophy in ways better suited for discussion by the WA General Assembly.

For those of you who attended the drafting committee meetings, the following FAQ sheet should be familiar. We've updated it, however to reflect the finished language of the proposal.



FAQ



Q1: You're trying to legalize furries and talking toasters here, aren't you?

A: The purpose of this legislation is to establish the principle that people are people regardless of the way they look or act--their "substance or behavior" as our sages have termed it. They may have fur and tails, or they may be machines, Artificial Intelligences, or sentient shades of the color blue. As long as they can reasonably claim to be a person (and the operative word here is "reasonably"), we have a moral obligation to respect that claim.



Q2: I don't believe in non-human intelligence. Why should I care about this resolution?

A: Even in a purely human context, this resolution establishes a fundamental right: That a person cannot be denied their personhood, their "humanity" if you will, just because they look or act differently from others. The right to be acknowledged as a human being is the most basic human right of all.



Q3: You don't define "personhood" here. Does this resolution actually do anything?

A: Defining "personhood" is a job for philosophers, not statesmen. We believe that previous attempts at legislation on this topic failed because they tried unsuccessfully to define personhood. For the practical work of the WA, it's more important that people be recognized as persons worthy of rights rather than debating what being a person means. By accepting personhood a priori, we can go ahead with that work.



Q4: It looks like under this resolution, someone can be a "person" only if other people say they are. I thought this was a fundamental right?

A: This legislation defines personhood as the accepted presence of a transcendental fact. Our argument is that personhood is a property that exceeds the WA's capability to legislate. It has, however, a visible presence in the web of mutual recognition between one person and another. I see you as a person because I see myself in you--to deny you is to deny myself. I judge your assertion of personhood reasonably because I wish my own personhood to be judged so.

This visible presence is something the WA can pass meaningful legislation on. Our intent is to prevent nation states from denying personhood--to take the question "who is a person?" out of the hands of the State and leave it in the hands of the people, guaranteed by us, the peoples' representatives.



Q5: What if I created a talking doll that says, "I am a person!"? Would we have to accept that?

A: No. Such a creature would not be making a "reasonable assertion" of personhood, as any real person could plainly see. On the other hand, if someone were to provide the doll with a more sophisticated programming and speech ability, to the point, for example, that it could pass a Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test), then we would have to consider its claim to be reasonable.

We believe that personhood is usually obvious. Only in the rarest of occasions would we expect a serious challenge to a being's assertation of it.



Q6: What is a "reasonable assertion"?

A: We're invoking "reasonable nation theory" here, the principle that WA nations are rational actors or they wouldn't be part of the WA to begin with. A reasonable assertation is one that you would consider yourself, as a rational being, making.



Q7: What "people" get to assert for individuals who can't assert for themselves?

A: We're defining "people" in the resolution very broadly. It can be, but isn't limited to, species, nationality, culture, or social/familial groups. This is done so that different nations with different societies can have flexibility when interpreting the resolution.

Kawaiian society, for example, places great emphasis on the unity of our culture--we see ourselves as a single people. Other, more culturally diverse nations may see themselves as composed of many peoples. A truly anarchic society may view each of its citizens as sui generis, a people unto him- or herself.

This flexibility of interpretation allows all such views to be respected, while retaining the principle that it is the people, not the State, who decide what a "people" consist of.



Q8: Is this a backdoor way of outlawing abortion by declaring fetuses "persons"?

A: No. Freedom of choice and personal autonomy are guaranteed by the explicit declaration that no person can be classified as a member of a people without their consent. Under this legislation, the only person who can legitimately claim a fetus is also a person is the woman carrying it. This legislation actually increases personal freedom by establishing fundamental rights for expectant mothers.

We recognize that so-called "borderline" issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and treatment of the mentally handicapped are serious questions, questions which the WA has a legitimate interest in. However, we feel it is first necessary to establish the legal status of personhood before one can debate the limits of it.



Q9: Won't this resolution require the WA to make a census of all WA nations?

A: No. The resolution requires the WA to keep a record of "peoples", not "persons". A nation merely has to submit an statement to the WA that all of its citizens, subjects, and other beings the state considers persons are "persons". If a nation refuses to acknowledge an individual or group as "persons", however, that individual or group will have the right to petition the WA to be recognized and placed on the record. The WA will have the obligation to accept that petition--if it is reasonable--and the authority to overrule the nation's self-assessment.



We now respectfully invite your comments and opinions.

Approved before WZ Forums, err, Jimmy Hart.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Ok, I've thought over the abortion thing, and I think you've cracked it. Actually, in a way this proposal makes it near impossible to declare fetuses persons! But we'll gloss over that on our way to approve it.

We have urged our honoured regional delegate to approve this resolution. Which fully addresses our previous concerns about its implications. The highly esteemed Ambassador for the Eternal Kawaii need not thank us for our incomprehension but we are honoured nonetheless if they believe we have assisted their effort in any way.

We believe this resolution properly deals with an issue of vital import and significance for the future harmony and unity of this organisation and it will increase the likelyhood that posterity will judge this organisation as truelly concerned with justice, compassion and liberty.

yours sincerely,

I've voiced my reservations.

I should note that my nation is drawing up a list for if this resolution passes. Despite my nation's apprehension, we still obey WA law.

I currently do not have details on the list itself, except that it follows the guidelines laid out in both the resolution and the FAQ and is intended to make full usage of this resolution to our benefit.

That, and the Empress cackles when I ask her about the list. It's a little scary.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain are for this proposal, however, we fail to see where it is stated (specifically or generally) that only a fetus' mother can recognize the personhood of her child.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain are for this proposal, however, we fail to see where it is stated (specifically or generally) that only a fetus' mother can recognize the personhood of her child.

We refer the esteemed ambassador from Sasquatchewain to our FAQ question 8. It is an implied right derived from the explicit right of any person not to be included as part of a people without that person's consent. Should a given people decide that a fetus is a person, a pregnant woman can opt out of that collective judgment by declaring herself a member of a different people.

Touché.

Touché.

Go read the submitted article. The FAQ is not included in it and, thus, is not actually part of the proposal. In short, the FAQ is not part of international law and the delegate from Eternal Kawaii has been using it to dodge around legitimate challenges to the proposal for quite some time now.

Also, note a lack of legislation for removing a creature from the list. In order to remove them, you'd have to repeal the entire resolution. As for why that's important: Well, that's classified at this time.

However, it is still a valid remark.

The FAQ may not be included in the proposal, but it expands on its implications. By stating that one is not forced to remain a part of one's "people," it gives women the possibility of avoiding her previous people's decision to declare fetuses persons.

However, it is still a valid remark.

The FAQ may not be included in the proposal, but it expands on its implications. By stating that one is not forced to remain a part of one's "people," it gives women the possibility of avoiding her previous people's decision to declare fetuses persons.

That remark is. However, the definition of reasonable as excluding things such as computers is not. There is no actual legislation involved that prevents a computer being programmed to simply claim it is a person from being accepted as it. Eternal Kawaii's delegate says there is because the FAQ says so, even though the proposal itself does not.

Of course, the FAQ then shoots itself and the proposal both in the feet by stating that individual concepts of reasonable are acceptable... which opens the door for anyone with a broad enough definition of reasonable proof for their own people to include just about anything they want.

OOC:This was written prior to seeing Forensatha's newest comment.

IC: However, it is a valid argument that this difference is pushing it. The lack of accurate and precise definition of "reasonable assertion," while understandable, makes it a bit subjective.

Why should a woman who believes in her right to abortion while her current people believe abortion is murder be allowed to create a new "people," while (we hope) the youth of our nation cannot splinter itself from their parents since they believe that Mach and Bozart's music should be banned, while their parents believe Mach and Bozart to be musical geniuses?

Is a divergence of opinion regarding abortion, all other things being equal, sufficient grounds to consider one different from one's people?

We still believe that this proposal is illegal, due to the effect it would have on the legal population of some nations. Therefore, we cannot support it.

OOC:This was written prior to seeing Forensatha's newest comment.

IC: However, it is a valid argument that this difference is pushing it. The lack of accurate and precise definition of "reasonable assertion," while understandable, makes it a bit subjective.

Why should a woman who believes in her right to abortion while her current people believe abortion is murder be allowed to create a new "people," while (we hope) the youth of our nation cannot splinter itself from their parents since they believe that Mach and Bozart's music should be banned, while their parents believe Mach and Bozart to be musical geniuses?

Is a divergence of opinion regarding abortion, all other things being equal, sufficient grounds to consider one different from one's people?



The simple answer to the honoured Ambassador's question is, yes this resolution does allow that belief in physical self determination should be good reason to disavow one's people.

But this is simply because this resolution merely allows that consent is the only determinant of membership of a people. This chimes very well indeed with the government of the Emperor of Urgench's philosophy which holds individual freedom supreme and the demands of group-think as secondary.

yours e.t.c. ,

That remark is. However, the definition of reasonable as excluding things such as computers is not. There is no actual legislation involved that prevents a computer being programmed to simply claim it is a person from being accepted as it. Eternal Kawaii's delegate says there is because the FAQ says so, even though the proposal itself does not.

We refer the esteemed representative from Forensatha to our FAQ #5. If a computer were programmed with such effectiveness that it were impossible to distinguish its claims of personhood from the claims of a flesh-and-blood being like himself, should he not seriously consider that that computer, even though it be made of wires and electrons, is nonetheless a person just as real as he is?

We refer the esteemed representative from Forensatha to our FAQ #5. If a computer were programmed with such effectiveness that it were impossible to distinguish its claims of personhood from the claims of a flesh-and-blood being like himself, should he not seriously consider that that computer, even though it be made of wires and electrons, is nonetheless a person just as real as he is?

Recently, there was an experiment in simulated chatroom technology. The idea was to produce a computer program that could learn adapt, learn, and respond in a way that made it seem like a real person. For most people, the simulation was so realistic that it's currently fueling research into creating a true AI. There were even a couple of people who became quite amorous towards it.

However, it was still a program. Outside of the limited scope of the chatroom itself, there was no way you could mistake the program for a living being. It simply did not have the full set of adaptiveness that a regular person does. Despite that, it is considered a success in artificial intelligence research, since it proved quite convincing in how it interacted, to the point most people who tried it would be willing to recognize it as a person. And, since they're relying upon personal definitions of reasonable, there comes a question on if the computer program would have to be added.

That is not the only case. We were able to produce computers doing tactical simulations equal to the practice scenarios used by many militaries back in the 1980s. At current, our advancement in tactical programming allows us to produce video games that show a tactical cunning equal to what one could expect in actual battles, given our watching of the world scene. Some would also argue that this is a reasonable show of personhood.

In addition, we've successfully gotten birds educated up to the level of a human toddler and our testing suggests that the common housecat has reasoning that is within the scale of what we would apply to humans, despite the fact we still keep them as housepets. And we've identified distinctive personalities in dogs and cats that can also be found in humans.

Ultimately, I would have no problems with adding cats to the list of people. They may get added anyway, even if this never goes to vote. What I do have a problem with is the fact that the parts of this that are law, the parts within the resolution itself, are so ill-defined that they require a FAQ to add details that should have been within the resolution itself. And, even then, what's to stop a nation from producing a broad list of what they consider to be "reasonable" and find that it easily applies to every virus and disease-causing bacteria in the world? Nothing within the FAQ or the resolution prevents such a thing.

The whole source of my problem with this, and what will be a continual problem as this comes up to vote, is the combination of vagueness and the fact the FAQ itself is not law and should not even be required. I do think that there are easier ways to solve the issue of personhood without leaving it so vague.

You once talked with Xen about trying to measure the insubstantial. Well, here's how I would measure personhood:

independent capacity for wisdom, judgment, the formation of rational, abstract or logical thoughts, and the ability to communicate these thoughts with others

Xen, admittedly, could have shown more tact in how he brought it up.

Anyway, can you think of anything in that method of measurement that does not achieve what you are trying for?

The trouble is that none of those measures (there are several there) are significantly more measurable than 'personhood' itself. By throwing in that definition, you are multiplying the vagueness, I'm afraid.

And not making a tighter definition itself will only continue to cause problems, not to mention leaving this wide-open for epic levels of abuse.

There may be ways to tighten it up without sacrificing the entire purpose behind it. That way, the original actions are preserved in the proposal while removing a lot of the room for abuse.

And not making a tighter definition itself will only continue to cause problems, not to mention leaving this wide-open for epic levels of abuse.

We would welcome an explanation from the esteemed representative from Forensatha of what manner of "abuse" he fears here.

We would welcome an explanation from the esteemed representative from Forensatha of what manner of "abuse" he fears here.

She. Xen no longer represents the views of Forensatha to the World Assembly.

One kind of problem is the idea that a nation could utilize its scientific resources to create a definition of personhood that they define as reasonable, but is so incredibly broad it could apply to any kind of life. Then, using that definition, they purposefully include every plant, animal, fungus, and otherwise that are, combined, the food supplies of the WA into a single list and then submit it.

The problem with that is the fact that, under the way the resolution is written, it's perfectly legal. They can prove that they consider it to be reasonable, and they can prove that it applies to all of the forms of life under it. The issue of life claiming it is easily worked around if they devote scientists specifically to that purpose. Thus, they leave the entire WA in the sticky situation of having the entirety of its food supply recognized as having personhood.

Now, admittedly, the WA could work around that, though it would severely inconvenience the entire organization. But, there's nothing to prevent the nation in question from then continuing on by proposing something that, on its own, would be perfectly reasonable and likely to pass, like a ban on cannibalism, but in combination with this would force the WA to repeal or starve. And the best part is, the WA would have openly voted in the very items that would be killing it.

Now, before you try to comment that this isn't likely to happen, let me remind you that there are some groups who are out to try to actively control the WA, through any means necessary. And there are those who would do it simply to get the point across.

Thus, why I would like the definition itself to be a little less vague. The other areas can be altered as necessary, but the definition itself is probably the most important part, given the point of the proposal.

One kind of problem is the idea that a nation could utilize its scientific resources to create a definition of personhood that they define as reasonable, but is so incredibly broad it could apply to any kind of life. Then, using that definition, they purposefully include every plant, animal, fungus, and otherwise that are, combined, the food supplies of the WA into a single list and then submit it.

The problem with that is the fact that, under the way the resolution is written, it's perfectly legal. They can prove that they consider it to be reasonable, and they can prove that it applies to all of the forms of life under it. The issue of life claiming it is easily worked around if they devote scientists specifically to that purpose. Thus, they leave the entire WA in the sticky situation of having the entirety of its food supply recognized as having personhood.

Kawaiians believe trees have souls, but that doesn't mean we wish to impose a WA-wide logging ban.

And Foresathans, whether religious or otherwise, believe nature should be preserved... but also don't want to ban logging, since there are ways to log without destroying the balance.

I think that, ultimately, we are in agreement about what we would like to see within the WA. Ultimately, something like this is what we both would like to see get into law. We just disagree on if this proposal is the right way to handle it.

That is not the only case. We were able to produce computers doing tactical simulations equal to the practice scenarios used by many militaries back in the 1980s.

I hope those computers also knew how to play Tic-tac-toe.:D

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

I hope those computers also knew how to play Tic-tac-toe.:D

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

It did, but every time it lost, it wanted to start a war with Russia :tongue: