On Motives vs. Deeds
One of the liberal ideological splinters generating problems is their attempt to judge motives. For instance, the argument was made by the liberal intelligentsia after the attacks on 9/11/1, "Arabs and Palestinians are angry because they suffer under terrible poverty while the West wallows in its riches. Therefore they strap improvised bombs to their bodies and walk into crowded markets and blow themselves up. If only we could address their economic needs, we could solve their violent tendencies" Folks, this conclusion ignored all the evidence and, in fact, the testimony of the attackers themselves. This is a fundamental flaw in liberal thinking which lengthens the struggle between good and evil and greatly increases the losses of life and resources. The same thinking is what allowed Hitler to advance his forces while the members of Parliament in Great Britain wrung their hands over Hitler's reasons for making such aggressive moves. The following is a chapter from Dennis Prager's short book, "Think a Second Time."
Assessing motives is usually pointless, and often destructive.
It is pointless because motives are almost impossible to determine. We often don't know our own, let alone others', and it is destructive because we almost always exaggerate the purity of our own motives and assign nefarious motives to others.
The solution to this problem, in fact the solution to much of humanity's problems, is this: We should judge actions--our own and those of others--not motives.
When we discover that we have hurt someone's feelings, our first reaction usually is "I didn't mean it." And because few of us do consciously set out to hurt another person, we feel that this exonerates us. By judging our motives rather than our actions, we can assuage guilt over any action or inaction.
What we do, not what we intend, is what counts.
On the global level, assessing motives rather than actions has led to serious moral distortions. Take, for example, the differing assessments of capitalism and Communism.
Communism resulted in the loss of freedom by more nations, and the deaths of more individuals, than any other doctrine in history. Yet because it was perceived by many people as emanating from good motives--abolishing poverty, achieving greater equality, etc.--many people refused to accord it the revulsion that its deeds deserved.
On the other hand, capitalism has enabled more people to experience freedom and prosperity than any other economic doctrine. It should therefore be widely admired. Yet it is often vilified. The reason? It is based on selfish motives--profit.
Defenses of Communism and opposition to capitalism have emanated from the same flawed logic--judging motives, not deeds.
Nearly all of us fall into this trap. Like most people, I long tended to judge negatively the motives of people with whom I disagreed. Only after years of hosting a radio talk show in which I speak daily with people whose views oppose mine did I learn the great lesson that people with whom I disagree are just as likely to have teh same good conscious motives that I ascribe to myself.
In addition to enabling me to mature, this attitude had an enormous unforeseeable benefit--people who disagree with me listen to what I have to say. When you belittle your opponents' motives, they can only become defensive. But when you ascribe to them moral conviction, they only have to defend their views, not themselves.
The practice of ascribing bad motives to one's ideological adversaries can be found throughout the political spectrum. Many conservatives have ascribed the foulest of motives, even murderous conspiracies, to one of their adversaries, President Bill Clinton. But I have been particularly saddened by how often liberals ascribe mean or selfish motives to their opponents. For example, voting Republicans means voting with your pocketbook, whereas voting for a Democrat is voting idealistically.
During the Cold War, those of us who supported a large defense budget and the building of nuclear weapons were accused at various times of loving war, having a psychological need for enemies, hating Russians, supporting the military-industrial complex, having a Rambo mentality, and suffering from missile envy. The possibility was rarely considered that we were motivated by love of peace and justice.
Yet we who supported a strong defense during the Soviet Union's heyday believed that our motives--ensuring peace by remaining strong, protecting democracy, opposing Communist tyranny, and helping small nations survive against Soviet imperialism--were quite idealistic.
So, please, no more assessments of motives. In matters of public policy, let's debate results, not motives. And in interpersonal relations, let's assess ourselves and others by actions, not intention.
My Groups
-
Conservative Politics Updated: 27 minutes ago
-
2nd amendment Updated: 27 minutes ago
-
Intentional Misinformation In News (host) Updated: 38 minutes ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
When you belittle your opponents' motives, they can only become defensive. But when you ascribe to them moral conviction, they only have to defend their views, not themselves.
How true! And I think it happens without realizing it.
I hope to remember this next time I become engaged in a debate.
Thank you for posting it.
Wouldn't that be refreshing?
In politics, apparently wisdom is seldom lauded or practiced. A good lawyer is lauded.
"We should judge actions--our own and those of others--not motives."
Shouldn't we leave all the "judging" up to God? Who are we to judge? I bet God can judge motives, too. God also says its his job to judge, not us. We should all just treat others as we want to be treated and not treat others by the color of their skin, but by the content of their charatcer.
Lot was accused of judging by the Sodomites while he was trying to protect the angels who were sent to pour out God's wrath on Sodom and Gomorrah. Gen 19:9 In this case his actions might have saved them. Sound anything like the accusations thrown at the church today?
God commanded us to use fair judgment in Lev 19:15. You shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.
In Psalms 58:1 David accuses the sons of men of using bad judgment, but not for using judgment
In Psalms 109:31 The psalmist charges men with judging people's souls. I read that men were entering God's territory by judging their motives here. New American Standard version Exhaustive Concordance #5314 in the Aramaic-Hebrew dictionary.
In Proverbs 31;9 where we understand a mother is teaching her son wisdom, she said, "Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy."
The reason we have this misconception that we are not supposed to judge one another is due to the misapplication of Mt 7:1-2 Do not judge lest you be judged, for in the way you judge, so shall you be judged. Taken in the complete message of Jesus Christ, He was cautioning us to prefer not to judge rather than judge with unrighteousness. That is, to condemn without cause. But if we go on to see what else Jesus taught us about judging we will find at John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.
The Bible is consistent start to finish. Christ said, "I came to complete the law, not to abolish it." I have to conclude from that statement that the wisdom we observe in the Old Testament is relevant for today. I cannot judge a man's motives, so I must judge according to his actions which demonstrate the quality of his character. Whether we judge or not, we will be judged by the Judge one day. His judgment is not dependent on our non-judgment and our non-judgment may very well require Christ's covering because inaction is as dangerous to our