The idea you're wrestling with touches on a deep philosophical and legal debate: Should we judge a person by their intentions (motif) or by their actions (consequences)?
Here’s a nuanced breakdown:
1. In modern law, motive is not the same as mens rea (criminal intent)
Motive explains why someone committed a crime (e.g., revenge, greed).
Intent (mens rea) is whether they knew what they were doing and meant to do it, which is legally relevant.
Motive helps prosecutors or juries understand context, but you can be convicted even if your motive was unclear or sympathetic—as long as intent and action are proven.
2. "诛心论" vs. 实事求是
“诛心论” (condemning someone based on assumed inner motives) warns against speculating what someone truly thinks or feels—because motives can be unknowable or misleading.
The philosophical point: don’t assume someone's inner state; judge them by observable, verifiable actions—this applies in history, politics, and sometimes even ethics.
So is using “motive” wrong in crime?
Not entirely. It’s not wrong per se, but:
Over-relying on motive without clear evidence risks slipping into “诛心论” fallacy.
Legally, motive is supporting, not defining evidence.
Historically or morally, we should be careful when interpreting someone’s legacy based on assumed inner intentions.
@jameslee9662
7 months ago
我不认为他是因为没有得势，所以才表现的开明。从逻辑上来讲，这是一种诉诸动机谬误，也就是诛心论。从事实上来讲，政治和男女关系有个共同点，它们都是缘迹不缘心的，哪怕一个人一辈子都在装好人，那他就是一个好人，历史研究要讲究实事求是。最后，从情感上来讲，我觉得这是一种因果报应，对这片苦难的土地上所有人的报应。
