Harming a favored side: an anomaly with supreme values and good intentions

Arye L. Hillman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Third-party adjudicators, be they governments, or politicians or academics, can take positions regarding who initiated a conflict, who is to blame for harm or damage, and who has violated international law. Decisions need not always be objective. There can be bias. I consider the anomaly of biased adjudicators providing incentives for harm to their favored side. The anomaly arises in real-life circumstances. The puzzle is why adjudicators with good intentions cooperate in bringing harm to the civilian population of the side with which they sympathize. Anomalies are usually addressed in a context of behavioral economics. I consider both behavioral and rational explanations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)275-285
Number of pages11
JournalPublic Choice
Volume186
Issue number3-4
Early online date29 Nov 2019
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Keywords

  • Cognitive dissonance
  • Hamas
  • Israel
  • Politics of identity
  • Post-modernism
  • Prejudice
  • Selective-perception bias
  • Supreme values
  • Third-party intervention

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Harming a favored side: an anomaly with supreme values and good intentions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this