The Worst Motive Fallacy

And Why We Must Do Better

What Is the Worst Motive Fallacy? 

Have you ever heard of the Worst Motive Fallacy? This is the tendency we all have to attribute bad intentions to behavior we don’t like. So, when someone does or says something that we find disagreeable, we quickly conclude that this person must also have bad intentions; otherwise, they wouldn’t have done or said that. What strengthens this idea is that we often view our own ‘good’ intentions as superior. Even if we can acknowledge the good intention in the other person’s behavior, we still consider our own intentions—and therefore our behavior—as inherently better.

We don’t need to look far to see how the Worst Motive Fallacy operates in practice. Just observe the heated arguments on social media, and it quickly becomes clear how entrenched we are in our own viewpoints. If you’re critical of the current Western globalist policies, you’re swiftly labeled as a Nazi, conspiracy theorist, or worse. Conversely, we now have a long list of names for people who support current government policies, from communist and malevolent elites to victims of the so-called "Trump Derangement Syndrome." We bombard each other with our convictions, justifying our actions with our own good intentions while portraying the other as malicious. This fuels endless debates about how wrong the other side is and how right we are.

The more pushback we get, the more convinced we become that our perspective is the only correct one. The other person doesn’t just have bad intentions; they are a bad person, a danger to society, a threat to democracy. Slowly but surely, a difference of opinion turns into a battle against an alleged enemy that must be stopped. And so, we ourselves start exhibiting bad behavior, which we justify with our own good intentions. Meanwhile, the other side sees only our bad behavior, attributes bad intentions to it, and thus the cycle continues.

The Worst Motive Fallacy in Practice 

We can all think of countless examples where the Worst Motive Fallacy has been used against us, and how we’ve fallen into the same trap ourselves. Here are the examples that stood out most to me over the past year:

1. The numerous legal actions against presidential candidate Trump, aimed at getting him off the ballot and convicting him for matters for which no one else has ever been prosecuted.

2. The situation surrounding Russell Brand, where the British Speaker of the House of Commons asked Rumble to cut off his income before any legal judgment had been made.

3. In the Netherlands, a politician with a dissenting view was accused of corruption. The Public Prosecutor leaked his entire case file to the state broadcaster, after which a professor of constitutional law discussed his alleged guilt on television before the court had even ruled. Eventually, the politician was acquitted on appeal.

If we objectively examine these cases, the actions behind these examples are nothing short of reprehensible. It’s tempting to label the people involved as malicious and to do everything we can to stop them. But here lies the problem: in most cases, we aren’t dealing with bad intentions, but rather with bad behavior that is rationalized by good intentions.

We Underestimate the Lasting Consequences 

We rarely consider the lasting consequences of the Worst Motive Fallacy on how people are perceived. More often than not, we turn to the media rather than legal action, which results in someone being condemned in the court of public opinion before they even had the chance to defend themselves.

How many times have we seen accusations that, years later, turn out to be unfounded? Think of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Russian interference in U.S. elections, or the COVID pandemic. The facts change, but the perception remains.

How the Media Uses the Worst Motive Fallacy 

The media plays a significant role in reinforcing the Worst Motive Fallacy. Look at the large number of personal articles, podcasts, and videos that are published daily. Often, they don’t present facts but opinions, based on a particular view of reality rather than objective facts. When someone who shares the same beliefs wants to express themselves, they are given all the space they need. But when someone with a different opinion wants to share their message, the process typically goes as follows:

• That person is ignored for as long as possible, so their viewpoint isn’t heard.

• If attention is given, a profile is often written in which the person and their message are 'analyzed' by like-minded people in the media. This almost always results in a negative image, discrediting the message.

• If the person does get an interview, the questions are often accusatory and leading, leaving them only able to defend themselves against half-truths, with little room left to convey their actual message.

Additionally, half-truths are often told, context is removed, or outright lies are spread. These falsehoods might later be quietly corrected in a small note at the back of a newspaper, but the damage has already been done. The person’s image will continue to be tainted, even if ‘the truth’ has been set straight.

We Must Do Better 

Ask yourself this: if you’re a conservative and someone calls you a Nazi, will that change your mind? Or if you’re progressive and someone calls you a communist, will you suddenly start voting right-wing? Probably not. What really happens is that you dig deeper into your beliefs.

So how can we do things differently?

1. Respect each other: This is the simplest way to de-escalate. Treat others with respect, even if you disagree.

2. Lead by example: It’s not about what the other person does, it’s about what you do.

3. Focus on the issue, not the person: We all have good intentions, but we differ on the solutions.

4. Verify your information: Be careful not to blindly accept everything you hear about someone.

5. Recognize that your reality is not the only truth: We all have a unique perspective on the world. Try to listen and broaden your own view.

And always remember: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

---

Has this sparked your curiosity? I've authored a successful fiction novel depicting life in a totalitarian state founded on radical equality. The novel is being translated into English and will be released in the coming months. Meanwhile, if you're interested in receiving more articles offering new perspectives on contemporary topics, sign up!