The point is that “if they knew, they wouldn’t have kidnapped you” is defeated by a precommitment to kidnap people whether they know or not. They don’t have to kill anyone to do this.
Being kidnapped, promising to pay ransom, being released, and not paying is better than being kidnapped, promising to pay ransom, being released, and paying. Keeping your word gives no advantage.
Precommitment is relevant in a second way here. You have to (before being released) precommit to pay ransom after being released. Once you are released, your precommitment would force you to pay the ransom afterwards.
If you are incapable of rewiring your brain so that you will pay the ransom, there could instead be laws recognizing that contracts made under duress are valid. That would have the effect of precommitting.
This precommitment is disadvantageous in the sense that being released without it is better than being released with it, but it also increases your chance of surviving to be released rather than being shot for not having any ransom. Precommitments tend to work like that—precommitting to do an action that can only harm you in a particular situation can be overall advantageous because it alters the odds of being in that situation.
The point is that “if they knew, they wouldn’t have kidnapped you” is defeated by a precommitment to kidnap people whether they know or not. They don’t have to kill anyone to do this.
Being kidnapped, promising to pay ransom, being released, and not paying is better than being kidnapped, promising to pay ransom, being released, and paying. Keeping your word gives no advantage.
Precommitment is relevant in a second way here. You have to (before being released) precommit to pay ransom after being released. Once you are released, your precommitment would force you to pay the ransom afterwards.
If you are incapable of rewiring your brain so that you will pay the ransom, there could instead be laws recognizing that contracts made under duress are valid. That would have the effect of precommitting.
This precommitment is disadvantageous in the sense that being released without it is better than being released with it, but it also increases your chance of surviving to be released rather than being shot for not having any ransom. Precommitments tend to work like that—precommitting to do an action that can only harm you in a particular situation can be overall advantageous because it alters the odds of being in that situation.
Currently, laws do not enforce contracts made under duress. How frequently are people murdered in protest of this?