I’m not sure that the Africa one is a good example—it depends on your definition of the term “biased”. if there are an equal number of criminals in Africa and Europe and the ICC is only investigating Africa, then that suggests that the ICC has some sort of bias towards only investigating in Africa. Perhaps the people in charge of the ICC only think that African people can be war criminals—then they’re certainly biased against Africa in one sense, even though their actions are helping Africa. On the other hand, if their actions are helping Africa when they could be helping Europe, they’re biased against Europe in the sense you meant.
A similar example is with police investigation in black communities in the USA. Suppose for the sake of the example that there are an equal number of criminals in black communities and in white communities, but the police investigate the black communities at a higher rate. If they do that because they think that black people are more likely to be criminals (even though this is not true), then they’re definitely biased in the former sense against black communities. And in fact, they might catch criminals more quickly there (good) but they might also shoot innocent people (bad), meaning that they could also be biased in the latter sense.
I suspect that when many people say “biased” they mean the former sense, where it’s about the perception, not about the outcomes.
However, I do agree with your general point. I hadn’t really considered before how moral statements could be illusions in such a similar way to optical illusions.
I agree. Why the ICC was only investigating Africa matters. One part is that the ICC doesn’t have enough perceived legitimacy or authority for stronger countries to submit to investigations; they rely on their own institutions instead, and the ICC doesn’t have the power to override that. I highly doubt anyone in 2002 honestly expected that, say, the US would support it investigating US military actions in the Middle East (and providing access to classified records for such an investigation), and letting them investigate and punish Bush and Rumsfeld for war crimes.
Five of the African countries actually (at least technically, IDK the details) invited the ICC to investigate, so it’s not clear whether there was foreign imposition there, or to what extent. And since 2016 the ICC has been expanding into investigating in other (still relatively weak) countries in other regions, and in the case of Iraq, (although it decided not to prosecute), it was actually British nationals being investigated.
So, yes, I also feel the moral illusion the OP points out, but once I know enough context, the illusion fades, and I start to see this as a piecemeal strategy of building up momentum and precedent to make it harder to countries that had previously supported the ICC in distant cases to oppose it closer to home. I don’t want to have to wait until 2050 or later for the world to fully get behind international institutions of this sort, but I don’t have a better idea for getting there faster given the world I actually currently live in.
I’m not sure that the Africa one is a good example—it depends on your definition of the term “biased”. if there are an equal number of criminals in Africa and Europe and the ICC is only investigating Africa, then that suggests that the ICC has some sort of bias towards only investigating in Africa. Perhaps the people in charge of the ICC only think that African people can be war criminals—then they’re certainly biased against Africa in one sense, even though their actions are helping Africa. On the other hand, if their actions are helping Africa when they could be helping Europe, they’re biased against Europe in the sense you meant.
A similar example is with police investigation in black communities in the USA. Suppose for the sake of the example that there are an equal number of criminals in black communities and in white communities, but the police investigate the black communities at a higher rate. If they do that because they think that black people are more likely to be criminals (even though this is not true), then they’re definitely biased in the former sense against black communities. And in fact, they might catch criminals more quickly there (good) but they might also shoot innocent people (bad), meaning that they could also be biased in the latter sense.
I suspect that when many people say “biased” they mean the former sense, where it’s about the perception, not about the outcomes.
However, I do agree with your general point. I hadn’t really considered before how moral statements could be illusions in such a similar way to optical illusions.
I agree. Why the ICC was only investigating Africa matters. One part is that the ICC doesn’t have enough perceived legitimacy or authority for stronger countries to submit to investigations; they rely on their own institutions instead, and the ICC doesn’t have the power to override that. I highly doubt anyone in 2002 honestly expected that, say, the US would support it investigating US military actions in the Middle East (and providing access to classified records for such an investigation), and letting them investigate and punish Bush and Rumsfeld for war crimes.
Five of the African countries actually (at least technically, IDK the details) invited the ICC to investigate, so it’s not clear whether there was foreign imposition there, or to what extent. And since 2016 the ICC has been expanding into investigating in other (still relatively weak) countries in other regions, and in the case of Iraq, (although it decided not to prosecute), it was actually British nationals being investigated.
So, yes, I also feel the moral illusion the OP points out, but once I know enough context, the illusion fades, and I start to see this as a piecemeal strategy of building up momentum and precedent to make it harder to countries that had previously supported the ICC in distant cases to oppose it closer to home. I don’t want to have to wait until 2050 or later for the world to fully get behind international institutions of this sort, but I don’t have a better idea for getting there faster given the world I actually currently live in.