tegwick
bd79b100c2
- T01 (RQ4): retain "Soul" - resolved with operator; Terminology.md, concepts/soul.md, OpenQuestions.md, Claims.md, paper/draft.md updated. - T02: lexicographic continuity-weighting procedure in concepts/identity.md, validated against TE-02/03/04/08. - T03: testable Being-vs-Social-Being boundary (three-part recognition test) in concepts/recognition.md and concepts/being.md, validated against TE-05/09. - T04: research/metrics-scoping-note.md - per-axis measurability scoping. - T05: research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md - bounded companion-line charter, explicitly not the mapping itself. - T06: publication pathway resolved with operator - internal circulation only, as paper-one for coulomb-research, following the same staged trajectory as coulomb-research's own paper-zero. Marks SOUL-WP-0009 finished. Opens SOUL-WP-0010 (proposed, not started) to carry forward the two multi-step residuals from T04/T05. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: sonnet Assistant-Process: 136745@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 2e334b58-ed31-48ed-8156-d09f8ed0781f
79 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
79 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
# Charter: Moral/Legal Personhood — A Separate Companion Research Line
|
|
|
|
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0009-T05, resolved 2026-09-28
|
|
**Status:** charter only — this note scopes a future companion line; it does
|
|
not attempt the mapping itself.
|
|
|
|
## Why this needs its own charter
|
|
|
|
`SCOPE.md` names "silent moral/legal personhood claims" as explicitly out of
|
|
scope for the core Soul Frame research program, routed instead to "law/
|
|
governance literature map only; no premature derivation." Soul Frame's
|
|
descriptive core (Being, Personhood-descriptive, Recognition) is built to
|
|
answer "what is this, structurally" without answering "what follows morally
|
|
or legally" — collapsing the two would violate the framework's own design
|
|
boundary (`concepts/personhood.md`'s four-kinds table: descriptive, social,
|
|
moral, legal, never collapsed).
|
|
|
|
The paper's research agenda (draft §17 item 4) nonetheless flags that
|
|
readers will want the "so what follows" answer. This charter exists so that
|
|
work can proceed on that question **without** loosening the descriptive
|
|
core to get there — by defining a companion line with its own scope.
|
|
|
|
## Scope (what the companion line would cover)
|
|
|
|
1. **Legal personhood precedent survey** — corporate personhood, animal
|
|
welfare/rights law, AI legal-personality proposals (e.g. EU robot-
|
|
personhood debate), personality/publicity rights (`SF-R110`), digital
|
|
estates (`SF-R111`) — building outward from the existing gap sketch in
|
|
`research/law-governance/sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md`.
|
|
2. **Moral status literature survey** — moral patienthood conditions
|
|
(sentience-based, interest-based, relational accounts), independent of
|
|
Soul Frame's descriptive Beinghood — checking where descriptive
|
|
Beinghood profiles *correlate* with existing moral-status arguments
|
|
without *implying* them.
|
|
3. **Explicit non-derivation statement** — for each descriptive Soul Frame
|
|
concept (Being, `Sp.`, `Gh.`, Persona), a companion-line entry stating
|
|
what moral/legal conclusion, if any, commentators have tried to draw
|
|
from a structurally similar concept, and why Soul Frame's descriptive
|
|
core does not itself license that conclusion.
|
|
4. **Jurisdictional variance tracking** — law/governance material is
|
|
explicitly jurisdiction-specific (`sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md` already
|
|
flags this); the companion line should track variance rather than
|
|
average it into one global claim.
|
|
|
|
## Non-goals (what the companion line must not do)
|
|
|
|
- **Must not** feed conclusions back into `Terminology.md`, `Claims.md`, or
|
|
`concepts/*.md` as if they were descriptive findings. A moral/legal
|
|
finding is filed in this companion line's own output, cross-referenced
|
|
from the descriptive concept files, never merged into them.
|
|
- **Must not** be used to argue that a system with a high descriptive
|
|
Beinghood profile therefore *has* moral standing or legal rights, or the
|
|
converse (low profile → no standing). The correlation question (item 2
|
|
above) is explicitly weaker than a derivation.
|
|
- **Must not** attempt a single universal legal position — jurisdictional
|
|
variance is tracked, not resolved into one answer.
|
|
- **Must not** become a gate for the descriptive paper's publication —
|
|
`paper/draft.md` already states its ethical/legal section (§14) as a
|
|
bounded sketch, and the companion line does not need to mature before
|
|
the descriptive paper proceeds through its own pathway (SOUL-WP-0009-T06).
|
|
|
|
## Relationship to existing work
|
|
|
|
- Extends `research/law-governance/sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md` rather than
|
|
duplicating it.
|
|
- Cross-references `concepts/personhood.md`'s four-kinds table as the
|
|
boundary this charter exists to respect.
|
|
- Does not extend or modify `paper/draft.md` §14 (Ethical and Legal
|
|
Implications) — that section stays a bounded sketch in the descriptive
|
|
paper; deeper treatment belongs here.
|
|
|
|
## Next step
|
|
|
|
This charter is not itself a workplan. If pursued, it should become its own
|
|
future workplan (e.g. `SOUL-WP-0010` or later) with its own task breakdown,
|
|
scoped narrowly enough (e.g. "legal personhood precedent survey only" as a
|
|
first slice) to avoid re-opening the whole moral/legal question at once.
|
|
Not opened now — SOUL-WP-0009-T05's done condition is this charter existing,
|
|
not the companion line's work starting.
|