Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Logic Notes

    Uploaded by

    Momna Farooq
    Logic project article

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Logic Notes

    Uploaded by

    Momna Farooq
    16 views7 pages
    Logic project article

    Original Title

    Logic notes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Logic project article

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    16 views7 pages

    Logic Notes

    Uploaded by

    Momna Farooq
    Logic project article

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 7
    Foal of Applied Philosophy ‘bo 10.111 Happ. 12272 wclapo ols oj b yeu, va obpchon *#Mom Crcluiow? toners S ery Kidnapped: The Ethics of Paying Ransoms JEFFREY W. HOWARD. /ARSTRACT Should garnets pay ransom 1 tort eganstons that una hidnap ‘heir citizens? The United Kingdom and the Uniad States refs to nego ith Crarat FFoups thar kidnap and shreaten ol ther people In ona, continental Epon coun Imes, such as France and Germany, have regwarly paid ranioms to rescue hostages. Who is_ yr er Aas been made to subject the matter to phi losophical ‘Scrutiny This article explores this issue, {casing on the cate of raiom payments o ert organo: cots at the Sate “hay pro zens from murder rons Pea oberon te ay ron em siders the objection that a policy of paying ransoms vs endangers cirizens abroad by increasing the Inkelihood of future kidnappings, and_it ins why rhisobjection_is_not sufficiently RE Te ed td ain nantly thay sate. pegmento ean sis ofa, som ztia ta me lees etc nn name eae Seley cade a er ate cw fit cmon te wh ints, ae mms on oe me bSHY Thed 9 wrong. vvdemya “Kidnapped en testing to i pertonwleennm id isaenihy fa facie woo Even if there are conditions in whieh it cou ied, no one should doubt that such conditions are both rare, and foment Ae most pressing. moral question with respect to kidnapping involves not its permissibilg but rather the ers pinnae ph ah Bea gyre IA rare ‘The question of what to do in response to hostage-taking is a practi eee ee ence Aros oe Ieaeee rob Far bape real portion of te cease operations in North Atice by Suppose kidnapping ropeans and then extracting _ransoms_fromtheir families and_goxern- trent, Trance lone hes pad tens of millon of lars fo them and ‘ie alates singe. 2008.7 The US and UK, Uupents, in contrast, standardly refuse to pay kid- it harps. ost recently. ee Sus ian Sy 1 By yon TE pis aiceplene veel wrk poled be ate wed ‘Who is right est > a Pie public debate about the a policy ch ransomsy Troe tend has not been any proper ineainton into this aueation by the philosophies! ee ‘community. The question of whether to pay ransoms to those who kidnap our ¢o-cit zens abroad rates deep and difficult questions-of politcal. theoryffabaut she scope.of . sd ya) the slaie’s obligation to protect its. members from, harm, and ghout how to wegh the uh help e care Thad he wae tp 7! ¢ “ee tow a Lae Chene Ny neh pape ent» pee i a i Mn We ods bat 2 Seftey W. Howat OM a 2 \ ‘neces of ones co-cizens with the interests of foreigners whose lives are endangered 5 9 ‘by the organisations that ym payments fund? Tt also, raises deep_an it ques- ” gl ae EOS aOR Payments Tund! ‘ Y Tas ’ tions of moral philosophy, namely, conceming the permissiblity of aggregation under i condinons-of.ssk.No wonder, then, that @rOrmative theory have shied away fom, 77 we by this debate, a ‘perfect.storm’-of thomy-controversits.> oe a Now that Western journalists and aid workers have essentially fled ISIS-run terri- eonee 7 eves tory, the question of whether to pay ransoms is no Jonger.as.urgent.to.the democratic co me . | world as it was just nvo years.ago, Yet we are entering a new period of instability. The Ae obo uh, time'will come when Kidnapping journalists and aid workers will once again be used. aulcowee, 48 a tool of profitcering and terradifngce ee Weed tS the world have a weigh in on what the rig olicy.in this area is.. Thi anicleame i me, focusing specifically on the ethics (yee ageunit P of paying ransomeyo ‘a ist organisations. ‘The view 1 ullitateaetend ar ¢ invarrexibnee cided Finbe fie that the case against paying ransoms cannot simply an Serv A bbe shat it incentivises. greater bostage:taking, and so subjects certain agents to a greater be thak + incunwy oh) ‘isk of kidnapping in. the furure than they would otherwise face. Such agents ~ be they fous ke journalists or aid workers who face an increased risk of kidnapping under a policy.of : paying. ye mot the ones who have the-weighilest complaint against such a G equal Comte Policy, Sec&riX argue that the wrongness.of paying ransoms. traces fact that, 7 (ube ia by paying the ransoms,one makes a causal contribution to. injustice. It is the victims a couple of such injustice ~ the families in the tows that ISIS burns, jts_ soldiers . Westeh gay who hold potentially decisive complaint against the pol rss tH, Tags ch cen sane ee eS who pay ransoms may be a ew nto i 3. pemicioud consequences of doing sq, * > “ bone . ‘The argument proceeds in wo phases,.In the first phase (Sections 2 and 3), I cone a bal vo sider whether governments ought te_pay-ransoms, focusing strictly on.the,intereste of : vw currently-ot prospectively Kidnapped persons..Section 2 develops the-case-fon-payiog Fansoms, while Section 3 poses an objection 0 the simple case ~ kG incenties chore ~ and explains why, under_certain plausible assumptio ion fails. Then T turn to the second phase of the argument ( Which widens the scope to include the interests of other people. Sec ecient te ce fr gin tsar = ME conpiy sie) ond {nq tak te ee ceeds_under-cerain. factual conditions, but_not_under others. Finaly, Scenes explotes some related.questions before concluding. Because one’s view on this ‘ssue depends ona range of prior commitments in polite gal and moral theory, as T have already intimated, there is no way ta defn esha sorhically uncontroversial poriion, Those who reset the assumptions Teese, throughout can nevertheless benefit tom the analysis 1 offer here, which will hel them reason theiz.way-to"theif Own Conclusions, nll help ve Tat awe woh je el, 18 moe ules ec : pe ay laisconteqieniiafatAmost conont the postibilty dat egy paying ry in worse outcomes, it is the right thing todo, "The Obligaion oe ses zesuls E Subjects tothe © sce fr Ape Py 217 The Ethics of Paying Ransoms 3 cign,’ writes Thomas Hobbes, ‘is understood to last as long, and no longer, than ower lasteth by which he is able.to protect them’. 3 Since Leviathan, political theo- Thave broadly agreed that a principal objective, if not raison d’étre, of political vority_is to protect its. subjects from the prospect of violent d fundamental ral aim of modem government, even if not the only aim, is to protect its citizens m murder. “To say that a government has a duty to protect its citizens.from.murder_does not ata that only its-ctizens have claims against it to be protected. in. this way.-Even if all poral agents have postive duties to protect one another from the prospect of murder, governments daty tp protect ts-own citizens from murder is especially weighty. This not because is citizens’ lives have superior worth To the lives of non-citizens; no plausible view will dispute a modest cosmopolitan commitment to_moral equality. Rather, itis because government righty takes itself to have the particular responsibilty for protecting the subset of agents that constitutes its citizenry, ‘This responsibility can be justified in different ways, depending on one’s political theory. But one.corollary.is cleat sof a state have the right to be-protected frome Murcer — ‘The corresponding duty-that falls on government offic murder itself yields ‘waves’ of derivative duties to which citizens also have correspond i ing rights:> to criminalise- murder, thereby declaring to_all that such an act is forbid- denj to undertake police investigations of all murders in order to cir PeTpetratarssto prosecute Suspected_murderers; 10 employ the official forum of the conviction process to condemn convicted murderers for their crimes; and to sentence convicted murderers to serious punis Is to protect citizens from commi ting murders in the futuge. Even the state's activities in resisting unjust aggression in war can be construed, at least partly, as an attempt to protect its citi zens. fom monde, “The idea that other activities may be required, as well — such as, ransom paymem ‘must be taken seriously. The state's duty to protect its citizens form murder.is.one we take.to be among its.weightiest..A state, that fais. in this task is failing a basic sovereign obligation, Te may-Re replied that state’ obligation to protect its people from murder Gia i “The state is obligated, of course, to protect its people from murder when they_are Jocated.on its-own territory. But itis not obligated to protect its people fr murder when they ate located ouside. its jurisdiction) This idea has some plausibility. But it is instructive to observe that it is defied by.contemporary practice. International law affirms the rights of states to use their power to protect the rights of their people abroad; Amticle 51 of the UN Charter is standardly invoked to justify action taken by states to rescue their unjustly endangered. natiofals across borders." To be. sure, states agree to protect visitors from each other's jurisdictions; the United States can count ‘on Japan to protect Americans in Tokye from murder. But when a. sceurity-situation deteriorates, states reserve the prerogative to act,.with military power. if necessary, to save their people from unjust violence. This is a widely. accepted feature.of our.inwr- national practice. Of course, simply because it ought to be legally permissible for. states to protect their citizens abroad from murder does not entail that states are morally required to do 30. Some may argue that if a state-wars its’citizens-not tor vsit-a-location, precisely. due to the dangers. involved in such a visit, such citizens cannot_rsasonably sxgeTyo.be rescued, especially if the costs of rescue’ are great,.Such..citizens have forfeited }their 1 Soci for Applied Pslnophy, 2017 wLocation sewive 2 4 Shey W. Howard a jar this is true for some Trek ungsar ple Cove the Het hat goverment have dui 0 provide foreign aid. in-dangerous places, and to incentivise_its_people_to a eae Te ‘example, giving tax-exempt status to non-profits who deliver it. Clearl cee ele ta ducarge thse dts, toe tncenvises to dscharge them on bea of those track home, eannot be told that they ought not ro have gone.” Most democratic i :nments wouldnt hesitate to dispatch its soldiers to reseve imperiled NGO work- fm, and a great financial cost It therefore should not come asa surprise that many foverments do-not hesitate fo pay ransoms to save the lives, of thee citizens. Inthe following discussion, accordingly, 1 shall focus. on citizens who have not forfeited their claim to be rescued: by ignoring clear warnings, vot Cope YONA aout fom murder i. reaion to pay ansoms, the duy.10 arms isa reason note Tite problem we face i this, wer persons wil be kidnapped, but those who are Kd "apped will dic. I we pay, many more persons wil be Kuntpneds ber (ees al of those who are kidnapped will merely be harmed (eg. By inciffing psychological trauma, deprivation of their iberty of movement ete) tery they we ence et if those presently kidnapped will die if we refuse to pay ransom, it is tempting to yer TEESE chins of oe whos foe toning Ranenivsed bya paC,. \\ Aghia. and s0,conclude that the costs are greater than the benefts-Call this thé’eerieey objec) to paying ransoms, \Lewiit argue thar the mere fact future kidnappings i iE he day to proupre nro cites ost eee ite rite o py at that paying ransoms will increase the likelihood of ‘ot sulicient to juny a potey of ref oms. The duty to prevent the moderate non-lethal = \ sufficient 19 justify_a policy of refusing to pay ransom idnapped agents experience must oot ee TG oon mun, Penman Roe eA moderate non-lethal harms if We choose one policy, iti. not permissible to-aggrenare those persons” complaints to override a qualitatively more serious prospect ofc faced by others. ro TM. Scanlon, familiarly contends that a disnetive appeal of a deonvciogios approach to etic, provesty construed, is precisely chat it refuses to permitthe Kndaf” se —> ‘aggregation that Gtlitacianism familiarly enjoins"? If it did permic it~ if an aggregation of moderate complaints could at some point outweigh a single devastating conpany what isto stop an aggregation of sigh, even rival complaints 1o-quscigh-msingis devastatin Scanlon famously holds that even if millions of World Cup viewers would be required to pause their enjoyment ofthe game for filteen minutes rescue someone suffering excruciating agony in the television transmitter room, the ight course"of action is to-undertake-the rescue, Crank the nun ke-the wumber of disappointed soccer fans up and up, as high as you like; it won't make a difference." ‘When considering st he coming ee eg fee asad as SPST nine eens * ON LR ae that_an agent experiences when Ndnapped and. nissiieni sieet eolaheS | Secchi Pinay, 2917 . Yn damiolya Men 4 7 To

    You might also like