诛心论诉诸动机谬误政治和男女关系有个共同点都是缘迹不缘心的因果报应
Modern legal judgments often fall into the fallacy of motive attributionwhat we call 诛心论 (condemning the heart). Yet in both politics and personal relationships, outcomes are judged by actions, not intentions.
Even if someone merely pretends to be virtuous their entire life, they are, in effect, a virtuous person. Historical inquiry, therefore, must uphold the principle of seeking truth from facts. Ultimately, what we witness may not be moral retribution, but a kind of karmic echo因果报应for all who have suffered on this land.
**
The idea youre wrestling with touches on a deep philosophical and legal debate: Should we judge a person by their intentions (motif) or by their actions (consequences)?
Heres 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 sympatheticas 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 feelsbecause motives can be unknowable or misleading.
The philosophical point: dont assume someones inner state; judge them by observable, verifiable actionsthis applies in history, politics, and sometimes even ethics.
? So is using motive wrong in crime?
Not entirely. Its 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 someones legacy based on assumed inner intentions.
Heres 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 sympatheticas 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 feelsbecause motives can be unknowable or misleading.
The philosophical point: dont assume someones inner state; judge them by observable, verifiable actionsthis applies in history, politics, and sometimes even ethics.
? So is using motive wrong in crime?
Not entirely. Its 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 someones legacy based on assumed inner intentions.
***
modern juridical judgement may be 诉诸动机谬误，也就是诛心论 -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。 -因果报应
@jameslee96627 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。
