Legal definition/protection of sentients

[Admiral Squish]

So, I'm not a law student, in fact I know very little about the law, beyond what one can learn from watching a variety of legal dramas. So, if my question/discussion point is inherently flawed, you'll have to forgive me.

The first question: Is there a legal definition of sentience? Some hard-and-fast rule that could be applied to any given being to determine if the creature is capable of higher reasoning? Or even a standard set of tests that could be used for such a purpose? If not, this seems like an issue that would require some serious thought. What would the determination be based off? Communication? Self-recognition? Mathematical comprehension? Tool use/creation? Logic? I can point to a non-human terrestrial creature that can pass any one of those determinations.

The second question: Is there any legal protection for non-human sentient creatures, or even non-terrestrial organisms? Many laws only apply to human-on-human actions, including assault, theft, murder, and other various unscrupulous activities. If, for example, a previously unidentified intelligent alien life form made contact with a human who then proceeded to beat up the life form, take their possessions, and ultimately kill the creature, would the human be guilty of anything? Or, in a (slightly) more likely scenario, if the curiosity rover were to run over some sort of 'martian lizard', would the rover's operator be guilty of anything? Animal cruelty/abuse?

[factotum]

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure there's no such legal framework simply because we haven't met any other species on this planet that we consider truly sentient. Until there's a significant scientific consensus that, say, dolphins should be considered sentient, there isn't any point in the lawmakers worrying about this area.

[Admiral Squish]

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure there's no such legal framework simply because we haven't met any other species on this planet that we consider truly sentient. Until there's a significant scientific consensus that, say, dolphins should be considered sentient, there isn't any point in the lawmakers worrying about this area.

Well, the problem with that take on it is that it's an endless cycle. There are no other sentient creatures, so we don't need a legal way to identify creatures as sentient. And without a legal way to identify sentience, then no creature would be classified as a sentient. And with no creatures being sentient, then we still have no reason to create a legal definition.

We have hundreds of thousands of dollars in a variety of projects, all searching the stars for signs of intelligent life, or even signs of any kind of life at all. If any of those projects come up with something, then the discovery would hold immense value, culturally, economically, and intellectually. And as it stands, some mentally damaged individual could, without penalty, destroy this potentially valuable discovery.

[thubby]

nothing explicit, but there is the aspect of "personhood" which non-human entities do have some aspects of.
currently it deals primarily with corporations, anarion would know more, but that's likely where our legal system would start building up from in the event of aliens.

[Anarion]

So, uh, I can answer a bit of this question, but it's tied up with some very dicey political issues that I don't think make it a permissible topic for this board.

Feel free to email me if you want to talk about the theory.

[Talanic]

I've read several science fiction stories (one of them last night, even) about this topic, particularly focusing on alien life. You might want to check out Fuzzy Nation by John Scalzi, or the story on which it was based, Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper (now public domain, but I don't think it aged very well).

Some groups have a first contact protocol ready, including the UN and the Vatican.

Not going to comment on laws and personhood beyond that, though.

[Brother Oni]

Skirting the actual legal issues and focusing on other aspects: the main test typically used is the mirror test - if the creature can recognise itself when shown a mirror, then it's generally afforded a higher level of intelligence.

Another item that might be of interest is legislation with regard to animal testing: the 'closer' an animal is to humans, the higher standard of care must be taken, the less distress can be applied during tests and more efforts to alleviate the suffering must be taken.
Off the top of my head in descending order: primates, other mammals such as dog, cat, rodents like rabbit and rat, everything else (sorry for being so vague but my line of work has very little use for non-mammalian models).

Incidentally cephalopods like the octopus have been granted honourary mammalian status under UK law due to their advanced problem solving abilities and general awareness (although their memory retention is pretty crap).

[Jaycemonde]

Incidentally cephalopods like the octopus have been granted honourary mammalian status under UK law due to their advanced problem solving abilities and general awareness (although their memory retention is pretty crap).

Soon, however, they will become disgusted with mere 'honourary' status and rise up from the oceans in a giant wave of tentacled terror, led by none other than the fearsome cuttlefish. They will drive us all like cattle before them, razing our petty civilization down and building a new one in it's place.

Then they'll forget what the hell just happened and go back to sea.

[Brother Oni]

Soon, however, they will become disgusted with mere 'honourary' status and rise up from the oceans in a giant wave of tentacled terror, led by none other than the fearsome cuttlefish. They will drive us all like cattle before them, razing our petty civilization down and building a new one in it's place.


To be honest, given the practices involved with sannakji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sannakji) and ikizukuri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikizukuri), I think it's well deserved.

I have no object to eating meat, just that the animal should be slaughtered in a way that minimises its suffering.



Then they'll forget what the hell just happened and go back to sea.

Then they'll come back and do it again. :smalltongue:

According to testing, octopuses essentially re-invent the wheel every time they come across a problem, even if it's one they did the previous day.

[thubby]

Then they'll come back and do it again. :smalltongue:

According to testing, octopuses essentially re-invent the wheel every time they come across a problem, even if it's one they did the previous day.

which means they have to have absolutely staggering problem solving abilities. even humans rely heavily on old solutions to new problems.

[Brother Oni]

which means they have to have absolutely staggering problem solving abilities. even humans rely heavily on old solutions to new problems.

Having worked in a corporate environment, I wholeheartedly dispute that latter assertion. :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Many, many animals are now considered sentient, and more every day. All of the areas listed are involved in that determination. It is clearly not, for the most part, a factor in legal status - although the "personhood" stuff mentioned has been debated in courts and the like before. Mostly it seems to be based more on capability for suffering than that.
In the case of alien contact, I would imagine that until or unless there are already laws covering it in place (which actually wouldn't surprise me all that much), they'd either be considered animals (for the purpose of cruelty to animals etc), or granted personhood by virtue of, you know, their superior technology etc.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Interesting legal/political discussion, but such discussions aren't really appropriate here.