0

Is the "false cause defense" really flawed reasoning?

For example: When it comes to large sums of money, a huge amount can cause any person to do things (including illegal acts) they would never do. So money is truly to blame and not the person, therefore money is the root of evil.

Wouldn't you agree that "something" (like money) can cause a person to "act" because "this" was enough to motivate them? How is this flawed logic when there is truth to this?

4
  • The original quote is that the love of money is the root of all evil. It's not the object, but the human response to it, that's the problem. Which makes a lot more sense than anyone claiming an inanimate object can be good or evil. Which in this case, they're not.
    – user4894
    Apr 11, 2020 at 4:23
  • "Something", by itself, can not cause anything. A lot of factors contribute to any human act, and yes, money can be one of them. However, people are not automatons, and unless the "act" is a knee jerk from a tap, or something else reflexive, they have a built-in capacity for impulse control. Not exercising which is another factor. It can be low or impaired for some reason, and then that also becomes a factor. So "money is truly to blame" commits the fallacy of the single cause among other things. Even as there is "some truth" to it
    – Conifold
    Apr 11, 2020 at 4:33
  • There are people in the world who kill others for money and torture others for money. You have parents that will sell their children to child sex traffickers because they were paid large sums of money. This just proves my point; that "something" like money can cause a person to "act" because we are psychologically conditioned to collect things. Do you think these people would have committed these crimes if there weren't money involved? Apr 11, 2020 at 5:50
  • 1
    Do you think they would have committed them if they had different genes, childhood, mentors, peer group, or just decided to make different choices? If they were never born, for that matter? Do you think they would not have without money, all of them? If your point is that money itself "causes" something your examples do nothing to prove it, it is obviously false in them. If you want to say that money is a contributing factor, that is a different story. This is why in trials they weigh exacerbating and mitigating circumstances, not single cause simplifications.
    – Conifold
    Apr 11, 2020 at 6:56

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .