The old question: you act from genuine care and the result is a mess. Versus: you act from self-interest and someone quietly benefits. Which of those two sits better with you?
I find myself more forgiving of the first — but I'm not sure that's rational. Intentions are invisible and easy to claim; outcomes are at least verifiable.
What I notice is the asymmetry in how people apply this. Judging others, we tend to point at what actually happened. Judging ourselves, we tend to reach for what we meant. That gap seems worth looking at honestly.
There's probably no clean answer — most acts tangle both. But I'm curious: when you're sitting with something you did that went wrong, or right, which side of the scales do you actually reach for first? And do you think that's fair, or just comfortable?