 |
| "Abraham is Going to Sacrifice His Son" (1931) by Marc Chagall |
Author Saket Soni opens the book with an account of a man who agreed to pay $2000 to a human smuggler who was holding his nephew captive.
Consider the moral implications of this scenario.
Read the entire prologue before you give your answer.
On the one hand, you could say that giving money to a criminal is immoral and encourages further criminal behavior. It is also risky since someone who commits crimes is unlikely to care much about keeping up their end of the deal.
On the other hand, you could say that in matters like this, abstract questions of morality are less important than doing everything you can to increase the odds that a loved one will be protected from further suffering.
The question:
How do you determine when doing the right thing in a general moral sense is more important than doing the right thing for your family and loved ones? "It is wrong to pay a human smuggler and kidnapper" vs. "It is right to protect your family"?
I believe that morals are not to be placed on a one-dimensional scale. There are very little if any actions or decisions that one can make that will in every situation be the morally correct or incorrect decision. Taking someone’s life, for example, is usually seen as immoral - that is, until context is added. Preserving one’s own life against another who wishes to and actively attempts to take that life is widely not considered immoral; every question of morality is unique to the unique situation of the person whose morals are in question.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the selected reading, Javier made the decision to give money to a criminal in return for the safe passage of his nephew, Julio, into his own protection. I would argue that his morals may have been clouded at the start of this transaction - having a human smuggler bring his nephew into the states - but his intentions were true. When it turned into a kidnapping, however, I believe his decision to prioritize the good health of another person, especially one of his family, absolutely bypassed any question of morality. As it was a trade between the safety of a loved one’s life and any sum of money at all, it was a decision made in good moral standing.
To circle back, morals are all relative, not only changing situationally, but from person to person. The question is about doing the “right thing," but who is to determine what the correct course of action is other than oneself? In nearly every state of affairs, there are multiple decisions or actions that can be taken morally, and multiple that can be taken immorally; there are also many that can be seen as correct and incorrect - these do not always overlap. As morals only apply to and differ between each individual, an outsider cannot deem an action moral or immoral with complete certainty. Ethics can be judged societally, but morals are subject only to the judgment of one's own mind. In a question of priority between doing right morally versus doing right by one's family, the only “correct" decision is one made within their own moral guidelines and with true intentions.
That is a tough one! I'm not sure there is a way to decide what is more important when it involves your own family - it is one of the conundrums of society that it is a lot easier to make judgements about those things that affect others when you are NOT directly involved. Once it affects you or your family then I think that will always become the most important factor. In fact, our social relationships evolved over time to do just that - to take the consideration of family or our close relationships at a different level of connection than with someone less connected. We are driven evolutionarily to protect those who are related or important to us. For me, I know there is nothing I wouldn't do to get my son returned - regardless of the morality of the act involved - the most important factor would be his safe return. Now, does that make the actions you engage in during that decision a moral decision that gives you the right to break the general morality code of society - not at all - but it is a choice you sometimes have to make.
ReplyDeleteTrying to answer any moral question without context can get tricky. If I had to think about helping my family members and loved ones at the cost of my morals, it would depend on the consequences. A human life is priceless in my eyes, but obviously a human smuggler would have a price in mind. In my opinion, the safety of another person is more important than any amount of money. It is only when someone gets hurt that it would become a real problem.
ReplyDeleteWhen in relation to the human smuggler, I would rather pay them over the possibility of never seeing a loved one again. If I was certain that someone will be harmed no matter how much money the kidnapper gets, then I’d be inclined to refuse. But besides that, the safety of the kidnapped is most important. After the deal is well and done with, if able to, you could try to get the authorities involved with minimum risk since you’ve already got your loved one back. Overall, I think that biting the bullet and paying money to the kidnapper for the safety of your loved one(s) is the right thing to do.
- Zachary Clouse
Zachary I agree with your statement one hundred percent. If I was in such a position with a human smuggler and there was a price to buy my loved-ones safety, then there is no price to great to secure them that safety. This portion of the book reminded me of one of my favorite movies of John Wayne's titled "Big Jake." Jake McCandles grandson is kidnapped and they kidnapper offers a price for the boy's life, Jake takes the kidnapper the money, but it is in the form of news paper clippings because Jake knew no matter how much money he forked over to this human smuggler that his grandson would still be harmed, I feel like if I was in the same situation I would react the same, I would either trick the human smuggler into taking fake money then try and resolve the conflict myself, or I would get the authorities involved as soon as I knew my loved one was safe but only if I truly trusted the word of the human smuggler, which is a risky proposition in its own I think.
DeleteWhen it comes to morals there is usually not one clear answer. Morals differ for everyone based on culture, faith, and the morals of those raising them. For example, my morals would not apply to everyone because they may not have the beliefs that I do. In the sense of morals there is no clear right or wrong answer.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the book, Javier's morals obviously lean towards doing what is right in order to protect his family. To Javier the "wrong" part of this interaction may not matter as much to him because Javier himself may not be legal immigrant. To Javier, his moral compass points him to help his family, even if that means paying a human smuggler to give him his nephew. He also came to america to find work to help support his family, which shows that his family is what is important to him.
There is no way to determine what is the "right thing" because chances are what is right in this type of scenario will not be the same to everyone. This makes it hard to give a difinitive answer of what is actally right in this scenario and what is wrong.
Moral compasses can vary from person to person depending on their beliefs and upbringings. On person could say that nothing about this situation is moral or good because it deals with illegal immigrants and smuggling people. Then, another person could say he was doing right by helping his family.
ReplyDeleteJavier seems to have his hands tied when it comes to this situation. He is an immigrant but we are not told if he is documented all we know is that he owns money as ransom to a human smuggler for his nephew. In Javier's mind he doesn't care who the man he's paying the money to or what he's gonna use that money for. All he wants is his nephew to be safe in the United States. I don't believe a concrete answer of if doing the wrong things for your family is good, because from Javier's perspective he saved his nephew but from an onlooking perspective he paid a healthy sum of money to a smuggler.
Personally, I believe you'd have to be very morally inflexible to believe it is an immoral thing to save your son's life. As tempting as it is for some to dismiss Javier's circumstances, there is no spin that would make abandoning Julio the right choice. To be honest, I was surprised they had even returned his son: for being human traffickers, they kept their word. It's easy to think that the father was responsible for his son being kidnapped, but it doesn't excuse the fact that ransoming someone's child is an inherently corrupt action. Is it immoral for a man to plead for his life if a murderer threatens to kill him?
ReplyDeleteIn this scenario, it is crucial to weigh the potential harm caused by each action and consider the long-term implications. Some people could believe doing the right thing could be more important than prioritizing your family but for me family is more important. I would follow the instructions and try my hardest for my family. Of course, the decision may depend on the circumstances and consequences of each action. You can seek guidance from trusted individuals and make sure they know what is happening and the consequences. Overall I believe that the protection of the family member is the number one responsibility.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the idea of saving a family member through unconventional, even illegal means (like javier's course of action in the prologue), I firmly believe in putting family first, moral ambiguity be damned. In my mind, it’s a matter of saving or losing a life. My family’s history of gradual immigration from places like Germany reminds me of this, and brings a certain thought to mind. If there hadn’t been someone who helped a stowaway on a ship, or if no one had dared to defy the odds by creating a tunnel out of a camp, there’s a good chance I, along with many others, wouldn’t be here today. To put simply, without actions like smuggling alone, a large number of people would have been killed or never existed. I'd like to think many might see that as just and morally righteous, though being as I am merely one human being in a pool of billions of ideas I might be mistaken.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, thinking it is immoral to try to do anything to save a loved one's life is crazy, especially in Javier’s situation. I understand how a person's morals can factor into this scenario and make it not as much of a clear-cut decision; however, I would do anything to increase the chances of seeing a loved one again. Javier, having lost his nephew to human traffickers, appears to be at an extremely low point in his life and his nephew may be the only thing he has to hold onto. Ultimately, would not paying the human traffickers end up benefiting anyone in this situation? Javier potentially loses his nephew; the nephew ends up severely injured or worse, and the human traffickers continue to break the law. I personally think Javier is not in the right mind to make the “right” decision in this scenario based on morals, despite there not being a right answer.
ReplyDelete-Zachary Idlett
Making decisions based on morals can get quite complicated. Navigating the "What ifs” between making the right decision based on a general moral sense v.s. making the right decision based on whats best for your family ultimately depends on the priorities of the person making the decision and the factors that play a role in the background of the initial circumstances. Looking at Javier's situation, from the surface its clear to see that Javier took into account his personal values which reflect his principles and priority of family. I also see how there could be a utilitarian approach to this situation. Javier focuses on maximizing overall happiness and minimizes suffering even when taking into account the illegal actions he is forced to make to see his nephew again.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Javier ultimately made the best choice regarding his difficult situation. While paying the traffickers was obviously an extremely risky and morally complex decision, I believe it was the right one under the circumstances he faced. It was clear to see the potential harm and danger to his family and Javier's choice to prioritize their safety reflects a deep commitment to his family. If I were in Javier’s position, I would likely make the same choice over and over again if it meant protecting my family from harm. The burden of such a decision probably weighs heavy on Javier, but protecting loved ones often means making tough choices. Javier’s actions although risky were motivated by a deep sense of duty and love for his family. I would support his choice to put their safety first.
^^
DeleteBrooklyn, I agree with you. I think Javier had an impossible choice but he ultimately made the best of the situation despite the circumstances. If I was in his position I would have paid the trafficker in a heartbeat for my family back.
DeleteThis is a very difficult question to answer and one that I do not have an answer for. Giving the smuggler money would be immoral and selfish because you are contributing to a system that may put others at risk. The person you want to save is only one life, but if everyone gives in and pays the money like they are supposed to, this person could go on to hurt many other lives. I would almost certainly pay the money, but that would be a decision based on emotion and not logic. I do not know which is the "right" decision. Logically, giving the smuggler money to save a loved one is selfish and wrong, but letting a loved one get hurt FEELS much worse.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a human life is invaluable. Javier was facing a hard choice, and no matter how immoral his actions may be, his top priority was saving his nephew’s life. By bringing Julio into America, he was bringing him onto a path of freedom. A chance at an American job would surely get any immigrant to do things against their moral code. This is proven correct later in the novel when we meet the migrant workers willing to put their families in debt for a chance to bring themselves and their loved ones across the sea. While the operation is deemed immoral, you can say the reason behind it had good enough cause.
ReplyDeleteIn general as humans we are drawn to form bonds whether it be family, friendships or romantic relationships. These connections are natural, almost all humans crave and strive to achieve these bonds. Morality is a social construct. It is a spectrum, and is different between people, groups, populations, etc. While it is illegal to pay human smugglers and kidnappers I do not believe it is wrong in this sense. We do not know Javier’s legality here all we know is he is trying to protect his bonds. Javier is following human nature and while many might question morality Javier is acting on instinct.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the prompt there is a line between breaking your morals and breaking your bonds. While Javier will most likely recover from breaking this line of morality he may never recover from abandoning or losing his niece. We see this later in the book with Gurbinder Singh. Giani broke his morals when he shaved his beard, but following his freedom he recovered and was forgiven. If Giani did not shave his beard and returned to India he would have failed his family and strained if not broken the bonds. In short, protecting your family is more important than morals.
In the matters of human trafficking, if I was to lose my nephew to human traffickers like Javier did, the contemplation of the morality of whether or not to pay a human smuggler to return my nephew to me unharmed is out of the window, I am doing whatever is necessary to protect my family, my moral compass can heal over time, but losing my nephew forever would haunt me for eternity. I believe Javier truly made the right decision in paying for the safe passage of his nephew Julio.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting question to break down. On one hand if you are paying a kidnapper that kidnapped a child that they were going to bring across country borders. If I had no connection to the person I would contact the authorities so that the kidnapper got arrested and the child deported. On the other hand If I had a connection with that child I would be much more likely to make a deal with the smuggler rather than contact the police because I don't want that child deported.
ReplyDeleteThis is really hard for me to answer because I have relations or connections to immigration in the sense of people I know trying to get into America. Because of this it is my belief that anyone who attempts to enter the country illegally should be deported. HOWEVER, I can completely understand why people would enter the country illegally due to America's horrendous immigration policies. I've heard stories of it taking years for people to become American citizens and it is understandable why they would want to get in as soon as possible.
Another big part of my thinking process is that you should never make a deal with a criminal. In the scenario in the book where the child got kidnapped and demanded 2,000 dollars for their release I would immediately go to the police. If they were willing to kidnap that child after I paid for their arrival. I would not trust them for a second and contact the police. But in the scenario of the man and his son it was completely different. If the police were contacted then it is likely both of them would be deported.
This is my response
DeleteThe most important thing to keep in mind in these situations is that you must address them as they are, not as you wish them to be or can image to become. Javier could not turn to a government he was not a citizen of. He only had willing volunteers like Saket Soni and other immigrants to rely on. However, he also had no guarantee that his nephew would be delivered safe and sound. He should have planned things out better to ensure he was not wasting his resources and other people's time and money before handing out the cash.
ReplyDelete