The ransom dilemma problem all around the world raises not only moral concerns for the govern ment, but also for the society as a whole in whether to save the kidnapped person or to do nothing
against it. While the U.S. and U.K. deal with this according to its strict laws and regulations ruthlessly in
order to preserve the integrity of the society, the European Union deals it with a more flexible and is ori ented toward a human-centered approach. This paper will try to analyze this ethical dilemma from three
diverging viewpoints. These concern the consequentialist/utilitarian viewpoints and the deontological
approach. While consequentialists support the argument that states ought to preserve the security of
their citizens without giving in to the demands of terrorists for an exchange of the kidnapped person, de ontologists on the other hand put human values and individual rights to the forefront and urges states to
save people no matter what the circumstances they are in. Here, we will refer to the arguments presented
by ethicists such as Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill as well as experts like Peter Singer. However,
in terms of deontological approach it comes with caveats in arguments between Kantian absolutism ap proach in categorical impetrative beliefs and Rossian intuitive prima facie duties approach. This paper
serves the purpose of informing and enlightening readers on the ethical issues that ransom dilemma
presents with a more informational-analytical standpoint. The rationale of our research paper lies within
the fact that very little research has been conducted in regards to ethical approaches towards the aspects
of ransom dilemma phenomenon. Hence, with this research paper, we would like to fill in this research
gap and bring in something new and interesting within the studies on ethics.
