Member-only story
Zelenskyy’s dilemma
Is a settlement of a conflict just and fair if the wronged party must reward the ‘wronging’ party? If not, what price is fair to pay for fairness and justice?
On 24 February, Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine entered its 4th year, with no end in sight. However, a new US president has grabbed the initiative to work towards a negotiated peace, and this is shining a harsh light on the profound moral dilemma Ukrainian president Zelenskyy faces. Any settlement will inevitably involve concessions to Russia, concessions which will undoubtedly feel deeply unjust. On the other hand, failure to reach a peace agreement implies indefinite hostilities, with the suffering — especially among Ukrainian civilians — carrying on unabated, and only the questionable hope for an outright victory as a counterweight. This is a clear conflict between a Kantian principled position (it is morally wrong for an invaded country to have to make concessions to its aggressor), and a Benthamite outcome-focused position (it is morally wrong to continue the bloodshed if there is a way to stop it). Which position is the more defensible, and under what assumptions and conditions?
Two (not so) very different decision types
