2023 Week 3 Discussion 2 by Roozer Tuladhar Friday 7 September 2018 9 38 PM We have seen multiple instances where | Assignment Collections

 Week 3: Discussion 2by Roozer Tuladhar – Friday, 7 September 2018, 9:38 PM 

We have seen multiple instances where terrorists take innocent civilians as hostages. They are taken from their places and kept in a hostile environment. They are held against their will and deprived of the basic necessities like food and water. In exchange for their safe return, they keep outrageous demands in the negotiation process. Hence, there needs to be proper negotiation planning for these high-risk situations. First, we need to assess the situation, and learn more about the terrorist. We need to analyze their strength and weakness, organize our information and then get ready for the negotiation process (Burr, 2001). Generally, in these types of negotiation, the terrorist almost always asks for immunity as a part of the deal in exchange for safe return of the hostages. However, the government will still want to capture the terrorist as they have committed a crime. It is in this situation, we face an ethical dilemma.

Ethics refers to the moral principles that are accepted as right or wrong. It depends on the perspective of an individual (Kronzon & Darley, 1999). What might seem ethical for one person may not be ethical for the other person. In our current predicament, the government wants to deceive the terrorist during the negotiation process about providing the terrorist immunity. This is where the ethics clashes from person to person. Some might say, lying is unethical and we might lose our moral values (Burr, 2001). They also argue that we should always be honest and strive to be ethical as ethics are one of the fundamental bases of humanity (Burr, 2001). However, others might say, it is the duty of the government to save the innocent by any means and arrest the bad guys. This is a very tricky negotiation process.

One of the articles I researched, the authors performed an experiment and concluded that how ethical views of person depends on who he/she identifies with (Kronzon & Darley, 1999). In this situation, I believe most of the people would clearly identify with the hostages and take their side.

In this situation, I believe, the right and the legal thing to do is to would be to deceive the terrorist to free the hostages. We are talking about innocent civilians who haven’t done anything wrong so why do they have to suffer. The terrorists should be punished, and government do whatever necessary to achieve that. We are talking about human lives here. That is the most important thing in this situation. What is ethical about making innocent people suffer. In this situation, save a life should be deemed a mandatory necessity and ethics as an optional luxury. Also, we can always debate about the ethics after we save the hostages and capture the terrorists.

Read and respond to the above post and write 200 words using APA format.