Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

News: Let us become steel shields that defend the ideals of the Glorious Revolution and Taijituan democracy!

Poll

How should the Delegate vote?

For
1 (20%)
Against
4 (80%)
Abstain
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Author Topic: Rights for Intelligent Beings (Failed)  (Read 956 times)

Offline Dyr Nasad

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 469
Rights for Intelligent Beings (Failed)
« on: December 15, 2011, 01:43:28 AM »
Description: The World Assembly,


Aware that the peoples of many nations believe in the existence of various kinds of non-Human beings that approach, rival, or surpass, the average Human in intelligence,

Believing that species should not be considered valid grounds for discrimination between intelligent beings, in and of itself, and that even nations that do not as yet have contact with any intelligent beings other than humans would not suffer from having laws already in place just in case that situation ever changes,

Concerned that some governments might however wish to discriminate unfairly between intelligent beings on the grounds of species, perhaps even concerning matters upon which this organisation has passed resolutions, on the argument that the term always used is “Human Rights” and that those rights are therefore legally guaranteed only to Humans;

1. Defines the adjective ‘sapient’ as meaning “possessed of self-awareness, free will, and intelligence that at the least closely approaches the lower end of the ‘average’ range for Humans (Homo sapiens)”, and the noun ‘Sapient’ [or ‘sapient’] as covering both “any being who is sapient in his, her or its own right” and “any member of a species or other category whose average members are normally sapient during at least one stage of their existences";

2. Requires that all WA member nations recognise all Sapients as legally ‘Human’ for the general purpose of all rights that are guaranteed or urged for Humans by WA resolutions, and therefore grant those beings -- regardless of species -- all of the rights covered by those resolutions that they grant to Humans, unless those beings genuinely possess any innate physical and/or psychological differences from typical Humans (or mental limitations compared to typical Humans) that would actually make doing this unfair in itself;

3. Requires any member-nation that declares any WA-guaranteed rights inappropriate and/or unfair for any sapient beings to grant those beings alternative rights, of a more appropriate and fairer nature, to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings reasonably makes practical;

4. Establishes an agency called the ‘WA Sapience Evaluation Centre’ (or ‘WASEC’), within WASP, and
A. Institutes a general right of appeal from member nations’ legal systems to WASEC in any disputes about this resolution’s interpretation, even by or on behalf of any beings whom a government has claimed are not sapient at all;
B. Gives WASEC the right and duty of binding arbitration in any such disputes that are brought before it, with instructions to judge those disputes fairly (without fear or favour) on the basis of observation, common sense, scientific study (when that seems necessary), and its own previous rulings;
C. Instructs WASEC to inform the governments of all WA member-nations of those rulings;
D. Requires that all WA member nations acknowledge WASEC’s rulings as valid legal precedents;

5. Strongly urges all member-nations to abolish any unfair discrimination between sapient beings on the basis of species that their laws might currently allow in any matters that are not covered by any other WA Resolution.


Co-author: St Edmund.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 09:52:27 PM by Dyr Nasad »

Offline Imzogelmo

  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Failure to elect is an election to fail.
Re: [IN QUEUE] Rights for Intelligent Beings
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2011, 09:15:16 PM »
I recommend to vote against the measure because
1) Not all nations recognize the existence of non-human sapients;
2) Among those who do, not all have contact with non-human sapients;
3) Those who recognize the existence and have contact with non-human sapients still retain their ability to define their own rules of
conduct and/or legal rights with respect to the non-human sapients.
4) The existence of a subset of nations with both recognition and contact with non-human sapients should not impinge upon the rights of other nations to define separate rules regarding the treatment of other species under the law.

Essentially, this argument is one of national sovereignty. Other, equally valid, arguments could also be made based on human superiority, difficulty of defining sapience in a non-human specific way (it's entirely possible there could be alien species more advance than humans that have no means of communicating verbally. How would such an entity be made to understand its legal rights?), and a slippery slope argument as to where the line would be drawn.

Offline Eluvatar

  • Tech Monkey
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 3111
  • O_O
    • Taijitu.org
Re: [IN QUEUE] Rights for Intelligent Beings
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2011, 04:12:36 AM »
Clause 3 = do not like.
                                 
(click to show/hide)

Offline Gulliver

  • Data Dog
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5284
  • Forsooth, do you grok my jive, me hearties?
Re: [IN QUEUE] Rights for Intelligent Beings
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2011, 04:23:49 AM »
I have to completely disagree with Elmo's argument. The rights of sovereign governments do not supersede the rights of individuals in importance; indeed that's the entire point of legally mandated rights, to protect individual liberties from overreaching governments.

That said, I am still against for different reasons. As Elu pointed out, Clause 3 is very much do not like. It amounts to what is essentially an opt out which undermines the entire resolution. Secondly, I dislike the use of the term "human" instead of just "person".

Offline Imzogelmo

  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Failure to elect is an election to fail.
Re: [AT VOTE] Rights for Intelligent Beings
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2011, 12:35:41 AM »
Sorry, but I don't want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that national sovereignty is superseding the individuals' rights. My core issue is that the resolution equates non-human sapients with humans. I am opposed to such equating, at least from a top-down manner. I don't oppose an individual state's right to make such a determination, but do oppose an attempt to impose such a potentially dangerous worldview on others.

Would it be murder to turn off (disassemble/melt/crush) a robot under this law? Maybe. Nothing precludes non-biologic beings from meeting the extremely loose definitions in the resolution. That alone is reason enough to oppose it.

Offline Dyr Nasad

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 469
Re: Rights for Intelligent Beings (Failed)
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2011, 09:54:41 PM »
Voted against. Failed.