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. "誅心論" vs. 實事求是
“誅心論” (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 “誅心論” 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
我不認為他是因為沒有得勢，所以才表現的開明。從邏輯上來講，這是一種訴諸動機謬誤，也就是誅心論。從事實上來講，政治和男女關係有個共同點，它們都是緣跡不緣心的，哪怕一個人一輩子都在裝好人，那他就是一個好人，曆史研究要講究實事求是。最後，從情感上來講，我覺得這是一種因果報應，對這片苦難的土地上所有人的報應。
