Kaithar

Too lazy for a motto
Since forever

Home Projects Resources Articles Soapbox Media Toolbox Toybox

Main Page About Kaithar Commit track ?CV Where to find me

I have formulated this phrasing myself, though some is obviously borrowed a couple of phrases from elsewhere.
Suggestions for improvements are requested, as is suggestions of existing documents with the same formulation.

• The Principle of Freedom
  Every reasoning entity has the right to say, do or believe anything they wish, without persecution, interference or outside harm, so long as they do not deny the same rights to another in the process.
  
• The Principle of Equality
  Every feeling entity is equal in value and respect, regardless of any other consideration, should be respected and treated accordingly, and should not be denied any Fundamental Rights.
  
• The Principle of Liberty
  Every responsible entity has the right to liberty without hindrance, providing that such liberty does not violate another's rights under the previous two Principles and has not been restricted for past occasions of the same.
  
• The Principle of Justice
  Every entity is considered innocent until proven guilty through fair process.
  No entity may be held accountable for the actions of another unless they have accepted to be responsible for that other.
  Any punishment given should be proportionate and appropriate to the offence committed and must not violate the second principle. A punishment violate the first principle only for the purpose of compelling expenditure of effort at a task chosen to allow the entity to earn absolution.
  

All fair laws may be derived from these 4 principles.

Definitions:

• A Reasoning entity is any entity capable of independent thought.
• A Feeling entity is any entity able to experience pain.
• A Responsible entity is any entity capable of choosing their actions and understanding the consequences.

• An entity who cannot fulfil the criteria of being a Responsible entity must be subject to the supervision of an entity who can and is able to ensure adherence to these principles.
• No principle requires the existence of an authoritative body, nor mandates a structure for such body, nor forbids it's creation.
• No group of entities are considered an entity in their own right, all actions are carried out by an individual to another individual, though an action may be performed by or to multiple individuals.

Entity implies a transcendence of human classification. Animals, AI, aliens... I struggle with the basic definition, but I'd say it's safe to say anything that can be considered capable of independent choice is an entity. It's probably not a perfect classification, but good enough for now.
Hence Principle 4 applies to anything capable of committing an action on it's own initiative.

The "Reasoning" in Principle 1 suggests that anyone capable of choosing to do something should have a basic right to do so. Principle 3 creates an exception to allow interference when entities may commit actions that are detrimental to self. Children and animals may on occasion need their Freedoms restricting simply because they don't understand the consequences of their actions. The minimum age restrictions on alcohol, voting and sex are examples of this.

The "Feeling" in Principle 2 implies that any entity that can be physically or mentally distressed should be given the same consideration as ourselves. Those incapable of feeling should generally be classified separately since emotional feedback is a key part of stability and safety in, however I don't think it is possible for any entity to be completely incapable of experiencing suffering. Essentially it's an attempt to show that the ability to feel emotions transcends colour, creed and species.

The "Responsible" in Principle 3 allows that reality and ideals don't always agree. Children, those with mental challenges, and animals with a more limited scope may need restrictions applied where they don't realise the eventual consequences of an action. I suppose "Responsible within the scope of the action" might be more accurate, but even that lends itself to qualifiers.

Animals are definitely covered by 2 and 4.
Principle 3 implies that keeping animals in small cages is not justifiable, they must have a fair amount of freedom, even if they must be contained for their own general safety.
Principle 1 is interesting in that while it does apply to animals, it is overridden by natural "eat or be eaten". Thus it does not mandate being allowed to kill, just that by killing another you accept that the same may happen to you.
Even we humans are stuck in the food chain, and I believe that we aren't actually doing anything wrong killing animals for food, provided the method of killing is humane and the animal is properly cared for during it's life. Things like battery farming and the less pleasant ways of butchering animals are clearly excessive. Equally, hunting should be considered unfair unless the animal has equal chance of killing you first, and then it's a matter for the hunter's own conscience.
Though, to be honest, any sort of killing is a serious ethical debate that has to be looked at on a case by case basis... such things can't be simplified to generalisations.

There are a couple of sticking points that have to be addressed.

First there's the matter of Freedom of Religion. These principles give people the right to hold any belief set they wish and practice those beliefs. At the same time they bar those same people from imposing those beliefs on anyone else, freedom to practice your religion doesn't convey freedom to discriminate against or suppress someone else because of those beliefs.

Next there's the matter of Justice. Prisons are a rather inefficient way of punishing crime, in most cases they just make people into worse versions of themselves. To be consistent with principles of fairness a punishment should focus on rehabilitation and productivity where possible rather than just trying to remove the offender from the general population.
Generally the death penalty excessive, but there are some occasions where it is perhaps justifiable. That's a generalisation I don't wish to make.

Informed consent is an essential requirement for interaction to be considered compatible with the first 3 principles.