How Is the Paradox of Blackmail Paradoxical?

The main aspiration of the present article is to elucidate what it would mean for the paradox of blackmail to be solved rather than dissolved . We begin by increasing the sense of paradoxicality of blackmail. To this end, we formalize the paradox. We demonstrate that it relies on a certain prima facie plausible principle of closure (what we call disjunctive closure ). This principle is quite unlike the principle which holds that the permissibility of action A and the permissibility of action B render doing A and B together permissible. On the principle of disjunctive closure, the paradox of blackmail seems to breed a genuine contradiction. Having adequately formulated the paradox, we turn to a normative point: What would count as a satisfactory solution to the paradox of blackmail? Informed by the treatment of paradoxes in logic, we argue that to take the sting out of the paradox of blackmail, we must embrace its core commitments and still explain how apparently contradictory verdicts might nevertheless arise. The upshot of the above considerations only strengthens our contention that what we proposed as a solution to the paradox of blackmail in Dominiak and Wysocki (2026) is indeed an adequate solution rather than a mere dissolution .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Libertarian Studies
Published
2026-09-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.35297/001c.168707
Primary Topic
Free Will and Agency
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

How Is the Paradox of Blackmail Paradoxical?

Igor Wysocki
Journal of Libertarian Studies
Free Will and Agency
article

How Is the Paradox of Blackmail Paradoxical?

Igor Wysocki
article en

Abstract

The main aspiration of the present article is to elucidate what it would mean for the paradox of blackmail to be solved rather than dissolved . We begin by increasing the sense of paradoxicality of blackmail. To this end, we formalize the paradox. We demonstrate that it relies on a certain prima facie plausible principle of closure (what we call disjunctive closure ). This principle is quite unlike the principle which holds that the permissibility of action A and the permissibility of action B render doing A and B together permissible. On the principle of disjunctive closure, the paradox of blackmail seems to breed a genuine contradiction. Having adequately formulated the paradox, we turn to a normative point: What would count as a satisfactory solution to the paradox of blackmail? Informed by the treatment of paradoxes in logic, we argue that to take the sting out of the paradox of blackmail, we must embrace its core commitments and still explain how apparently contradictory verdicts might nevertheless arise. The upshot of the above considerations only strengthens our contention that what we proposed as a solution to the paradox of blackmail in Dominiak and Wysocki (2026) is indeed an adequate solution rather than a mere dissolution .

Journal of Libertarian StudiesVol. 30(2)
Nicolaus Copernicus University (PL)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Free Will and Agency
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

How Is the Paradox of Blackmail Paradoxical? — Igor Wysocki · Journal of Libertarian Studies (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS