“A written British constitution is a lofty ideal… I’m pretty sure it could never happen. You can’t improve on what we’ve got, it’s too complicated- might as well just accept defeat, and leave it as-is.”  

​

Yes you can- stop being lazy, and unimaginative! Yes, it would involve exiting the European Court of Human Rights as discussed above, but beyond that, there are many ways Parliament could approach a British Bill of Rights. (Some political parties, like Reform UK, are chomping at the bit to pass a new one too.) 

​

Here’s an example draft utilitarian constitution (minimising unnecessary suffering) Rex wrote around 2 years ago. It’s not perfect- despite previous policing experience, he’s not a legal professional, and he conceptualised it around both a day job and familial responsibilities- but it could very much serve as the foundation for a new constitution. 

​

You’ll note that it firmly places the quality of life of hard-working British nationals FIRST. 

​

---
DRAFT Ethics Constitution, 2026. 

A proposed new constitution for Great Britain, taking absolute precedence over all other laws- by Rex Regis.
 

--- 
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. 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 supermajority 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: 
        i)  The Survival-based utilitarian Decision model (dicussed shortly) had been applied first, if practical, or- if impractical- 
        ii)  The *ISAVING decision model had been applied first, and/or 
        iii)  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), 
        iv)  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.) 
8. Designated Free Thought Division: This state shall appoint a Designated Free Thought Division. This division is charged with thinking outside the box of established, deterministic national and global paradigms, with the aim of expediting the realisation of National/ 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. 
9. 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. 
10. High treason: Any member of Parliament who wilfully 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 an adversarial territory shall be found guilty of high treason. 
11. Education: This constitution shall guide all educational curricula. 
12. 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 addressed in a collaborative, peaceful manner alongside other nations. 

​

* 

I-SAVING Decision model.

• [Significant decision established-]

• Information (gather relevant information and intelligence; prioritising credible sources (NOP/PST).

  Conduct a balanced investigation; mitigating confirmation/ selection bias, by considering a range of opposing opinions and perspectives on the topic. Make sure you fully understand the situation at hand, and its broader ethical context, before progressing.)

• Step up (Favour positive action over remaining perpetually 'on the fence.' Action can of course simply be extended research, or withdrawal if this seems likely to result in less unnecessary suffering.)

• Assure protection/ Assess threat and risk. (Innocent Lives First- Safeguarding the known innocent takes priority, always. Complete a full and thorough threat and risk assessment, particularly around innocent and vulnerable populations.)

• Value the options (Identify potential solutions, and which would appear to yield the most happiness for the most sentient beings in the given context. For non-emergencies, this should very much be a focus on the long-term. Consider all relevant laws, policies and procedures.)

• Implement necessity (Take only necessary action, and aim for it only to be as complicated as absolutely necessary to maximise happiness/ minimise suffering. Avoid work duplication; think to whether anyone else is discharging the same function as you/ your team.)

• Notify rationale (Clearly communicate decision rationale and associated risks to any stakeholders.)

• Get feedback (Stay open to feedback and personal reflection before, during and after acting, and be

  willing to adjust strategies accordingly (without compromising the necessity to maximise happiness/ minimise suffering.))

 

--- 
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 (1), and within the context of the global journey toward World peace. 
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 (covered shortly). 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): 

i. 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. 
ii. 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 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. 
iii. 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. 
iv.    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. 
v.    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 help establish: 
        a.    Optimal population growth rates 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. 
        b.    Whether stricter border controls are necessary. 
        c.    Whether stronger policing and/or military action is to be taken in high-violence areas.
2.    Authorities would need to declare a ‘quality-of-life’ crisis in scenarios where this falls below an acceptable standard and take  necessary action to ensure contributing, deserving citizens are living in comfort.  
3. The data upon which QOL is assessed would cover: 
        a. Population size. 
        b. Violent crime rates (charges. The focus metric.). 
        c. Violent crime rates (reports. Not the focus metric, but should still be taken into consideration). 
        d. Serious shortages in core resources deemed ‘standard societal necessities’ (i.e. housing materials, electricity, food, clean water, sustainable clothing materials, digital infrastructure, healthcare systems.) 
        d.    Healthcare waiting lists. 
        e.    Surveys- how does the general population feel about their area? (Massively important.) 
        f.    Homelessness. 
        g.    Green spaces. 
        h.    Air/ water pollution levels. 
        i.    Literacy rates. 
        j.    Access to recreational facilities and activities. 
        k.    Availability and quality of childcare and eldercare services. 
        l.    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. 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 utilitarianism 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. (Breaking fourth wall: I will include this model later in the month, when my website is fully released.)

----     
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 
        i)  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. 
        ii)  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. 
        iii)  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 
        i) 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         of state activities. 
        ii)  Such transparency shall facilitate opportunities for disagreement and improvement; however, very rare                   situations may arise that necessitate confidentiality when transparency poses a greater risk of harm to                         innocents. There must be a full debrief and explanation from the state to the public once the immediate threat of         information dissemination has satisfactorily passed, and the withheld information must be released in full                     without redaction. Any withholding of important rationale behind state decisions shall require robust, written                 justification through the Survival-based utilitarian Decision Model (RUDM) which must also be supplied to the             public once the threat has passed.
4)  Protocol for the Prevention of Racial Genocide and Torture 
        i)  Genocide means a genuinely immoral, targeted and wholly discriminatory attempt to destroy a particular race         or ethnicity purely on the basis of those factors. 
        ii)  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. 
        iii)  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(1)) 
5)  Protocol for the Prohibition of Dangerous Ideologies 
        i)  “Dangerous” refers to an ideology that: 
                a)  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 
                b)  Is not grounded in fact, or the constitutional consequentialist theory of morality, and 
                c)  Encourages, incites, or condones unnecessary violence, hatred, positive or negative discrimination                         against innocent and/or non-predatory, non-carnivorous sentient beings. 
        ii)  “Ideology” means a systematic body of ideas and beliefs, that influences actions, behaviour, or policies, and                 is characterised by: 
                a)  A deterministic structure that constrains individuals’ autonomy in thought and action, and 
                b)  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. 
        iii)  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. 
        iv)  Such ideologies must adapt to exclude unconstitutional teachings or activities without delay. 
        v)  If the whole ideology does not meet the criteria in i) or ii) 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. 
        vi)  Failing to do any of the above may be met with prosecution. 
        vii)  The constitutional, consequentialist definition of morality shall not be deemed a dangerous ideology. 

6)  Protocol for the Prevention of Sexual Offences 
        i) 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.

        ii) Teachings in schools relating to perceived non-biological gender identity are prohibited. Failing to comply with            these mandates will be met with severe legal consequences. 
        ii) Encouraging or enabling a child to engage with a gender re-assignment procedure shall be a criminal                        offence.

7) Protocol for Freedom of Sexual Orientation 
        i.    Individuals are free to identify with any sexual orientation, including but not limited to homosexuality,                           bisexuality, and asexuality, without discrimination or prejudice. 
        ii.    This protocol shall not extend protection to any sexual orientation or activity involving harm to others or                        inappropriate interactions with minors. 
8) Protocol for Anti-Discrimination Measures 
        i)  Discrimination is defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people on the                         grounds of race, ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender or disability. 
        ii)  Practices that deliberately create unfair advantages or disadvantages for any qualifier besides ethical utility               are unconstitutional. 
        iv)  Anti-discrimination shall be a guiding criterion in the formation of new laws, albeit weighed against                             objective meritocracy in key sectors such as STEM, governance, policing, military and fitness-related roles. 
 

11) Protocol for the Protection of Free Speech 
        i) Individuals are entitled to free speech without restrictions. Attempts to suppress free speech will be viewed as            a constitutional offence attracting severe penalties. 

13) Protocol for the Right to Euthanasia 
        i)  Every citizen shall have the right to request euthanasia when suffering is deemed intolerable and irreversible,             with no feasible prospect for relief. 
        ii)  Such a request shall only be valid when made with full mental capacity, requiring a clear, voluntary, and well-             considered declaration. 
        iii)  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. 
        iv)  In instances where the patient is unable to make such a decision 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. 
        v)  In the absence of a designated LPA, the determination regarding the euthanasia of the suffering individual                  shall be referred to the relevant local authority, which shall involve consultations with healthcare                                   professionals as part of the decision-making process. 
        vi)  Any determinations regarding euthanasia in cases lacking an appointed LPA shall be comprehensively                         rationalised and communicated to the local community. 
        vii)  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. 
        viii)  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 8: 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.

[End of Act]