There are two sets of problems involved in the recent kidknapping of two British tourists by Somali pirates. The first surround the methods in which their release could be secured, and the second, much less discussed surround where the burden of payment or risk falls once a solution to the first set has been settled upon. Any action that is taken to secure the release of the Chandlers will certainly involve some significant monetary payment or personal risk. In this short blog, I will argue that this burden (which, for the sake of length restriction, I will call the release burden) should not be assumed by any singular actor or body.
Intuition would lead most of us to the assumption that the release burden imposed by those involved should fall upon a person or persons some how closely associated with the Chandlers. Perhaps the Chandlers should pay the ransom themselves. But what if they cannot afford it? Their family? And if they can’t? The British government seems to be the obvious answer. It has a duty to protect its citizens from harm, and a substantial payment to Somali pirates will do seemingly little financial or military harm.
I think, however, that we should reconsider this intuition if we are indeed to act morally. I do not think that it is possible to argue, from a moral point of view, that the burden of release should fall only upon those involved, their relatives, or their fellow nationals for the following two reasons:
Firstly, the mistaken decision made by the Chandlers to sail through dangerous waters was not influenced by any group or individual. If they were told, misleadingly, that the route they planned to take was safe, then perhaps we would be justified in making the claim that those who misled them should incurr the release burden. It seems, however, that the only people involved in the mistaken decision were the Chandlers themselves, and the relationship between the act and those close to them is simply arbitrary. A comparison can be drawn here with the plight of the families of the Chinese cockle pickers who were tragically killed at Morecambe Bay in 2004. I cannot see how it can be argued that these families should have the burden of payment to the gangsters imposed upon them for the decisions of their sons and daughters to travel to England that many of them disagreed with. Either way, if the decision indeed was a mistake, then those involved in taking it should not be forced to incur the burden of payment or release. As G A Cohen and other egalitarians have argued, it makes sense that support should be offered to those who did not choose their unfortunate plight.
Secondly, I cannot see why our willingness to help those in need should depend upon the willingness or ability of others to do so. It should rather depend upon our genuine concern for those concerned. If this, and only this, is taken in to consideration, an international cooperative solution will be met. A complete moral actor, I believe, would not interpret the release burden as a burden at all, but rather as an automatic call for cooperation to get the victims to safety.
Perhaps in the future we will see international cooperation in the release of hostages. If this were to happen, I believe that those unfortunate enough to be kidnapped would feel a great more secure in the knowledge that their fate is not being shunted between actors whose unwillingness to contribute results from their lack of familial or national connection. If decisions are uninfluenced and mistaken, then surely everybody in the world has a moral duty to offer sanctuary, irrespective of their connections to those who made them.
Politisophy 