Ethics Constitution, 2027 (draft).

 

The new constitution for this jurisdiction, taking absolute precedence over all other laws.

 

---

Section 1: Fundamental Principles

 

1. Survival-based utilitarianism (maximising happiness): All actions and policies shall be aimed at sustainably and efficiently maximising happiness and minimising suffering for the greatest number of deserving sentient beings within this jurisdiction, and seeking to empower only those who demonstrably seek to sustainably and efficiently maximise happiness and minimise suffering for the greatest number of deserving sentient beings within this jurisdiction. ‘Deserving’ equates to individuals who do not deliberately cause unnecessary suffering to other sentient beings. ‘Unnecessary suffering’ means non-retaliative and unprovoked suffering borne of irrational, unsubstantiated and/or discriminatory reasoning (or no clear reasoning). ‘Retaliation and provocation’ in this context must be related to specific individuals being retaliated against for prior utilitarianism-opposite acts (i.e. deliberately causing unnecessary suffering to the retaliator and/or their immediate family); retaliation and provocation shall never be defences to perceived wrongs from entire demographic categories as perceived by the retaliator.

2. Objective moral standard: The reasonable and ethical person test shall be the objective standard applied to legal interpretation besides laws which are utterly unambiguous. Under this standard, decisions are to be made based on what a hypothetical reasonable person would deem both rational and ethical in terms of sustainably and efficiently maximising happiness for the greatest number of sentient beings in the given context and circumstances.

3. Core prohibition: Deliberately causing unnecessary suffering to a sentient being within this jurisdiction is a constitutional crime, to be met with proportionate penalties in every instance.

4. Prioritisation of Innocents (‘Innocent Lives First’): The safety and security of this nation’s children under 17 years of age will be prioritised in all circumstances. Vulnerable adults are to receive enhanced protections but will still be fully subject to criminal laws.

5. Transitional, protective sovereignty: This jurisdiction is a sovereign state. From this day forward, all international relationships and obligations are voluntary and free of mandates. No external entity shall seize any degree of control over this state’s national security affairs, including how it controls its borders.

6. Defense duties: Any attempts to interfere with these matters through pressure, coercion or infiltration, if not done clearly in the interests of non-violently facilitating World peace as determined by a majority of this state’s constituency and a supermajority vote in Parliament, may be viewed as aggression and met with a proportionate defensive response.

7. Statutory Power of Necessity: Deviations from established mandates may be permitted in exceptional circumstances where demonstrably greater good is achieved for the majority. This power of necessity would be available to everyone, provided:​​​​​

8. The Survival-based utilitarian Decision model had been applied first, if practical, or- if impractical-

9. The ISAVING decision model had been applied first, and/or

10. It can be proven that, to the mind of a reasonable and ethical person, utilising the doctrine of necessity is required to maximise collective happiness in the circumstances, or (in the case of inquires),

11. Maximised collective happiness in the circumstances was the consequence of the action taken, and it’s evident on the balance of probabilities that these consequences were the intended consequence. (If evidently not the intended consequences, consider prosecution for preparing or attempting a criminal offence.)

12. Designated Free Thought Division: This state shall appoint a Designated Free Thought Division. This division is charged with thinking outside the box of established national and global paradigms, with the aim of expediting the realisation of World Peace and maximised happiness. Their activities and communications shall be monitored but not unduly interfered with by the state unless it compromises national security in a clear and tangible way.

13. Fundamental duties in office: All who work in an official capacity are explicitly charged with protecting this state’s national interests, the quality of life of its nationals, their safety and their happiness. Significantly deviating from this basic duty shall be considered unconstitutional and result in dismissal or possible prosecution depending on the degree and nature of the deviation, and compatibility with an offence under this state’s criminal law.

14. High treason: Any member of Parliament who spreads misinformation undermining this state’s national security will be removed from office expediently, investigated and may be prosecuted for high treason. This does not extend to factual, well-balanced and well-researched information delivered in an impartial manner that slights against the nation’s interests, as this would encroach unnecessarily on free speech and constructive dialogue in the journey toward World peace. Any person found to be sharing information pertaining to the development, construction, supply or use of any weapons technology or advanced energy systems with a non-secular territory, and/or a territory outside of the Project Defensor alliance, shall be found guilty of high treason.

15. Education: This constitution shall guide all educational curricula.

16. World peace and happiness: The sovereignty described in subsection 5 above shall not, however, translate to reduced diplomacy or a reduction in constructive communication with other territories. Addressing world problems that threaten the existence of civilised society, peace, scientific understanding, rational thought and/or happiness on a global scale should also be treated as priorities by this government and addressed in a collaborative, peaceful manner alongside other nations. The United Nations must remain in effect for this reason, and agreed summits and diplomacy efforts must continue until the realisation of World peace. Hence, this transitional sovereignty should be viewed as a temporary protective fixture, necessary in the journey toward an eventual world peace and happiness, where the World operates as a fully collaborative, tolerant, rationally-thinking, peaceful, global society.

 

---

Section 2- Presumed moral capacity.

 

1. Moral capacity is defined as a person’s capacity to cause happiness, and not cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings. The impossibility of evidencing this to an exact extent means it must be classified in practical terms as ‘Presumed moral capacity’. This should be viewed as the fundamental basis for establishing deservingness among citizens in a practical sense. No attempts should be made to measure this in a person until they are over the age of 17. This qualifier overrides any and all demographic categories in all official, leadership, social, societal, governance, political, economic, policing, judicial, educational and employment-related contexts.

2. Demographic categories are defined as racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation, skin colour, ethnic, cultural, species, and any other conceivable descriptive category besides moral capacity and/or ethical utility.

 

---

Section 3- Sentience and ethical utility. 

 

1. Ethical utility means any entity’s tangible propensity to sustainably and efficiently maximise happiness for the greatest number of sentient beings in the given context and circumstances as determined by the most rational and evidencable perspective. For people, this means the same as ‘moral capacity’. Ideas, animals and objects, for example, don’t have ‘moral capacity’- they do have greater or lesser ‘ethical utility.’

2. This state should constantly be seeking to prioritise, promote and safeguard entities with the highest ethical utility in the given context and circumstances and fully within the context of survival-based utilitarianism as described in Section 1, and within the context of the global journey toward the eventual World peace described in Section 1.

3. Sentience is defined as the apparent capacity of an organism to experience pain. It is usually obvious when an organism is sentient, as it will move away from painful stimuli or try to defend itself.

4. Beings with higher sentience should generally take precedence over those with lower sentience, as the presumption is higher-sentience beings are able to experience pain and suffering more intensely than those at the lower end of the scale. They also generally have higher intelligence, affording them higher ethical utilities. However, it must still be noted that deliberately causing a being at any level of sentience suffering is still a constitutional crime outside of self-defence purposes or if there is some clear constitutional necessity meaning the action causes a rational and evidenceably greater good effect.

5. The evaluation of worth in this nation really comes down not to sentience, nor species, but to ‘ethical utility’. An entity with higher ethical utility in the context of a specific action is what should be prioritised, as balanced against the innocent lives first principle. Use of the survival-based utilitarian decision model is encouraged in dilemmas concerning this.

6. Predatory, non-domesticated carnivores are to take lowest priority in state decisions, as these generally have very low ethical utility by deliberately causing suffering to their prey for the sole purpose of survival, without always having any clear broader benefit to other sentient beings. Ecological arguments can however be made in their defence and override this principle, if rational and evidencable. Ecologists and other subject experts must be consulted before taking any drastic measures against predatory, non-domesticated carnivores.

7. For argument’s sake, here’s a provisional priority spectrum for sentient life on Earth, going from least to most (provisional until undeniable evidence comes to light falsifying it, and also provisional to adversarial entities within given decision-making dilemmas having the same apparent ethical utility):

1. Believed not sentient: Single-celled organisms (e.g., bacteria, amoebas, plants)

   • Sentience: Minimal to none. These organisms respond to stimuli (like chemicals or light) reflexively without subjective experience.

   • Pain Capacity: Non-existent. They do not have nervous systems or the biological frameworks required for the experience of pain.

2. Very low sentience: Simple multicellular organisms (e.g., jellyfish, sponges)

   • Sentience: Limited. They may have basic nervous systems and can react to environmental stimuli, but likely lack

3. the complexity to have subjective experiences.

   • Pain Capacity: Unclear. While they may exhibit responses to harmful stimuli, these are likely automatic and not accompanied by a sensation of pain as we understand it.

4. Low sentience: Invertebrates with simple nervous systems (e.g., insects, worms)

   • Sentience: Low to moderate. These organisms have more complex behaviours and nervous systems that might allow for rudimentary forms of experience.

   • Pain Capacity: Controversial. They do exhibit nociception (response to harmful stimuli), but it's unclear if this translates to a subjective experience of pain.

5. Moderate sentience: Higher invertebrates (e.g., octopuses, some molluscs) and lower vertebrates (e.g., fish, amphibians)

   • Sentience: Moderately high. They have more advanced nervous systems and demonstrate behaviours suggestive of more complex experiences.

   • Pain Capacity: Likely. These organisms show numerous signs of experiencing pain, such as protective behaviours, learning to avoid harmful stimuli, and physiological stress responses.

6. Highly sentient: Higher vertebrates (e.g., mammals, birds, humans)

   • Sentience: High. These animals have very complex nervous systems and demonstrate a wide range of behaviours indicative of rich subjective experiences.

   • Pain Capacity: Definite. There is ample evidence that these animals experience pain similarly to humans, with clear behavioural, physiological, and neurological indicators.

 

---

Section 4: Quality of life.

 

1. Ensuring deserving constituents have some collective quality of life is an absolute governmental priority. Among all other leadership decisions, this is the threshold to determine:

   1. Whether continued population growth is feasible in a given locality, in the interests of the happiness and safety of its citizens, national security, economic strength and the ethical utility of the nation in the journey toward an eventual World peace.

   2. Whether stricter border controls are necessary.

   3. Whether stronger policing action is to be taken.

2. Authorities would need to declare a ‘quality-of-life’ crisis in scenarios where this falls below an acceptable standard. This declaration should trigger staged warnings issued to the general public regarding birth rates and any other urgent measures necessary to retain the agreed collective quality of life. Overpopulation of any species should be managed humanely, and in the case of humans, without violent measures and with education, family planning, female empowerment and optimal resource distribution as absolute first ports of call. 

3. The data upon which QOL is assessed would cover:

   1. Population size.

   2. Violent crime rates (charges. The focus metric.).

   3. Violent crime rates (reports. Not the focus metric, but should still be taken into consideration).

   4. Serious shortages in core resources deemed ‘standard societal necessities’ (i.e. housing materials, electricity, food, clean water, sustainable clothing materials, digital infrastructure, healthcare systems.)

   5. Healthcare waiting lists.

   6. Surveys- how does the general populace feel about the crowding situation? (Massively important.)

   7. Homelessness.

   8. Green spaces.

   9. Air/ water pollution levels.

   10. Literacy rates.

   11. Access to recreational facilities and activities.

   12. Availability and quality of childcare and eldercare services.

   13. Digital connectivity and internet access rates.

4. National and regional authorities are charged with gathering the above data, and subsequently determining whether or not to declare a quality-of-life crisis (after utilising the Survival-based utilitarian Decision Model).

5. Thresholds: the minimum quality of life to be met for this nation’s deserving (morally capable) individuals are all standard societal necessities, low fear-of-crime, low violent crimes, and expedient healthcare services. This necessarily includes the comprehensive information technology systems necessary to propagate this quality of life on a large, fair, just and effective scale. A quality of life for every morally capable citizen that extends into excessive luxuries, such as expansive estates, lavish vehicles, and extravagant personal amenities that go beyond essential comfort, sustainable happiness and the minimum things necessary for a positive mental affect, shall not be a suitable threshold upon which to declare a quality-of-life crisis and must immediately return to more sustainable parameters.

 

---

Section 5: Survival-based utilitarian decision model.

 

The Survival-based Utilitarian Decision Model is an IT-based decision model for non-emergency, long-term ethical choices. It is mandatory for this system to be used to aid in such decisions where practicable unless exceptions are specified in law.

 

----

Section 6: Rights for All Sentient Beings (Freedom from Unnecessary Suffering)

 

1. Protocol for the Prioritisation of Safety for Innocents (Innocent Lives First) 

   • Sentient beings identified as innocent (i.e., those not known to cause suffering without clear provocation or constitutional necessity), and children under the age of 17, shall be afforded prioritisation particularly over individuals or entities deemed morally incapable or with low ethical utility in crisis or emergency situations, wherever practicable.

2. Protocol for Support of Vulnerable Populations

   • The safeguarding and development of children under the age of 17, which includes comprehensive child protection services,  provision for education based on rational observation and science, and ensuring a peaceful retirement for the elderly, are fundamental societal responsibilities. 

   • Those lacking mental capacity and individuals suffering chronically with no clear prospects for alleviation shall receive support from the state as necessary, however this does not extend to excusing them from deliberately and violently causing unnecessary suffering to sentient beings. 

   • Familial support for vulnerable populations shall be considered the first avenue of support for those able to provide it; however, the state maintains a duty to provide reasonable assistance to those in need where this is not deemed possible.

3. Protocol for Communication and Transparency

   • All citizens are entitled to comprehensive explanations from the state regarding the rules governing their conduct to foster understanding of survival-based utilitarianism and stimulate constructive dialogue and criticism. 

   • Such transparency shall facilitate opportunities for disagreement and improvement; however, situations may arise that necessitate confidentiality when transparency poses a greater risk of harm to innocents. 

   • Any withholding of important rationale behind state decisions shall require robust justification through the Survival-based utilitarian Decision Model (RUDM).

4. Protocol for the Prevention of Racial Genocide and Torture 

   • Genocide means a genuinely immoral, targeted and wholly discriminatory attempt to destroy a particular race or ethnicity purely on the basis of those factors. It does not mean a defensive or pre-emptive military action taken in response to credible intelligence received which suggests a material threat to national security, regardless of the race or ethnicity of the region subject to the defensive or pre-emptive action.

   • Torture means deliberately inflicting an excruciating level of physical pain on a sentient being for any reason. It also encompasses extreme sleep deprivation and can extend to false imprisonment, particularly in confined spaces, both still being deliberate and for any reason.

   • Those proven to be engaging in deliberate acts of racial and ethnic genocide, or torture against innocent beings, may be condemned to capital punishment. Torture proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been conducted as a genuinely retaliative act against an utterly heinous and unprovoked offence against oneself and/or one’s immediate family may be subject to alterior sentencing depending on the exact circumstances (retaliation as defined in section 1).

5. Protocol for the Prohibition of Dangerous Ideologies 

   1. “Dangerous” refers to an ideology that: 

      • Has a distinctly ‘closed’ and/or dogmatic nature; showing clear intolerance and lack of openness to outside perspectives, along with an unreasonable unwillingness to compromise on its established principles, and

      • Is not grounded in fact, or the constitutional consequentialist theory of morality, and

      • Encourages, incites, or condones unnecessary violence, hatred, positive or negative discrimination against innocent and/or non-predatory, non-carnivorous sentient beings.

   2. “Ideology” means a systematic body of ideas and beliefs, that influences actions, behaviour, or policies, and is characterised by: 

      • A deterministic structure that constrains individuals’ autonomy in thought and action, and

      • A distinct, named or nameable identity that distinguishes it from open, rational discourse, which encourages or coerces compliance and uniformity across those practicing it, and discourages deviance.

   3. Ideologies meeting the above criteria are declared unconstitutional and should be prohibited in such a manner that the presiding authority sees fit, provided the manner itself is constitutional.   

   4. Such ideologies must adapt to exclude unconstitutional teachings or activities without delay.

   5. If the whole ideology does not meet the criteria in 1) or 2) of this Protocol, then only part of the ideology need be prohibited. Entire ideologies should not be prohibited unless the entire ideology meets those criteria.

   6. Failing to do any of the above may be met with prosecution.

   7. The constitutional, consequentialist definition of morality shall not be deemed a dangerous ideology.

6. Protocol for the Abolition of Slavery and Human Trafficking

   • Slavery is the condition of being controlled or owned by another person against one’s will (or through manipulation). Along with its intrinsic lack of basic freedoms, it’s characterised by serious mental and physical harm- borne from poor living conditions, untreated health problems, and/or punishment for non-compliance. Slavery does not mean being employed, and working a nationally agreed and universally applicable number of hours per week while earning the national minimum wage or above as part of an organised societal system that sustainably and efficiently maximises happiness for the greatest number of sentient beings within its jurisdiction and meets the minimum working requirements to effectively defend its borders. The meaning of slavery does not stretch to prison settings, when the prisoners ordered to work have been convicted of non-acquisitive, non-desperation utilitarian offences (i.e. deliberately causing unnecessary suffering to a sentient being offences only), and it does not imply that working prisoners should be entitled to over 50% of the ordinary minimum wage for the jurisdiction. This however does not give any licence for deliberate, barbaric treatment such as physical violence, physical degradation or torture to be used against them.

   • Human trafficking is the illegal trade of human beings for the purposes of forced labour, sexual exploitation, or other forms of exploitation. It involves the use of force, fraud, coercion or manipulation to control individuals.

   • All forms of slavery and human trafficking are wholly condemned, subject to severe consequences based on the degree of involvement.

7. Protocol for the Prevention of Sexual Offences 

   • Sexual offences against any sentient being are strictly prohibited, with consequences varying based on severity. Sexual acts must only occur after informed consent expressly given from both sides prior to the act and may never occur with any person under 18. Teachings in schools relating to sexual identity or sexual orientation are prohibited. Failing to comply with these mandates will be met with severe legal consequences.

8. Protocol for Freedom of Sexual Orientation

• Individuals are free to identify with any sexual orientation, including but not limited to homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality, without discrimination or prejudice.

• This protocol shall not extend protection to any sexual orientation or activity involving harm to others or inappropriate interactions with minors.

• However, this does not extend to these discussions happening with children. Educational systems shall not promote doctrines beyond the recognition of male and female genders as biologically defined, nor should discussions regarding sex occur with prepubescent children. Encouraging or enabling a child to engage with a gender re-assignment procedure shall be a criminal offence.​

• 9. Protocol for Evidential Protection

• Individuals are entitled to proactively document evidence of crimes committed against them through video or audio capture, and proactively document false allegations being made against them. 

• Individuals may employ body-mounted cameras or similar devices to execute this, except for recording in or into areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms or private spaces without permission.

• 10. Protocol for Anti-Discrimination Measures 

  • Discrimination is defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people on the grounds of race, ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation, or disability.

  • Religion partially fits this list; albeit, only the aspects deemed as non-dangerous under the specifications of Protocol 5.

  • Practices that deliberately create unfair advantages or disadvantages for any qualifier besides ethical utility are unconstitutional. 

  • Anti-discrimination shall be a guiding criterion in the formation of new laws.

  • ‘Discrimination’ arguments shall not protect those practicing or spreading dangerous ideologies.

• 11. Protocol for the Protection of Free Speech  

  • Individuals are entitled to free speech, which shall be safeguarded except in instances where such speech endorses dangerous ideologies or is discriminatory. Attempts to suppress free speech will be viewed as a constitutional offence attracting severe penalties.

• 12. Protocol for Data Privacy and Integrity  

  • The unlawful sharing of personal, official, official-sensitive, sensitive or secret data as defined by Parliament shall be an offence. 

  • Notwithstanding the aforementioned, circumstances may arise wherein the extraction and dissemination of personal data may be warranted for the greater collective benefit, particularly in instances necessitating immediate investigation of serious criminal activities and those involving material threats to national security constitutionally justifying the extraction.

• 13. Protocol for the Right to Euthanasia  

  • Every citizen shall have the right to request euthanasia when suffering is deemed intolerable and irreversible, with no feasible prospect for relief.  

  • Such a request shall only be valid when made with full mental capacity, requiring a clear, voluntary, and well-considered declaration.  

  • Confirmation of severe physical or psychological torment that is unrelievable is mandatory, necessitating consultation with multiple healthcare professionals to ascertain that all alternative options have been sufficiently evaluated by the patient.  

  • In instances where the patient is unable to make such a request due to a lack of requisite mental capacity, a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) shall have the authority to make the decision on their behalf.  

  • In the absence of a designated LPA, the determination regarding the euthanasia of the suffering individual shall be referred to the relevant local authority's Review and Decision-Making Body (RUDM), which shall involve consultations with healthcare professionals as part of the decision-making process.  

  • Any determinations regarding euthanasia in cases lacking an appointed LPA shall be comprehensively rationalised and communicated to the local community

  • The conditions for eligibility shall include: 

  • Grievous and Irremediable: The presence of severe and intolerable physical or psychiatric suffering resulting from a medical condition. 

  • Expected Prognosis: The condition must be established as irreversible with no reasonable prospects of recovery.

  • The primary decision-maker shall be:  

  • The patient, subject to a designated cooling-off period allowing for reconsideration prior to any actions being initiated.  

  • Should the patient demonstrate a clear lack of mental capacity over a continuous three-month period following the final prognosis, with monthly interviews conducted, the decision-making authority shall then pass to:  

  • Their appointed LPA. In the absence of an appointed LPA, the authority shall revert to:  

  • Their next of kin, both of whom shall be obligated to act consistently in the best interests of the patient.

 

----

Section 7: Review and Amendment

​This constitution shall not be changed for any reason besides the finding of a more objective consequentialist theory for morality, which could evidenceably result in tangibly better outcomes for more deserving sentient beings than the maximisation of happiness for all sentient beings, as specified under the theory of survival-based utilitarianism outlined in Section 1(1) and that justifies changing any elements of this constitution in line with its fundamental principles. Such amendments shall require a supermajority vote from the public and from Parliament.

​​

​---

...If you like what you’re reading, please read our book, or become part of Absolute Justice Revolution, and help turn this vision into reality…