The Principle of Charity[1] A simple definition of the principle of charity is that arguments must be considered in their strongest and most persuasive formulations. [2] When we encounter new arguments, the principle dictates that we temporarily suspend our objections and focus on understanding all of the argument's complexities, nuances, and ambiguities. We attempt to repair contradictions in the argument under the assumption that our opponent is rational and that the contradictions in question may well be the fault of our own interpretation. The principle of charity is the Golden Rule of philosophical debate: We consider the arguments of others with the same care that we would have our own arguments considered. [3] In short, every argument we encounter we interpret to its own benefit. In doing so, we not only strengthen the arguments of our opponents but the veracity of our critiques. [4] The principle of charity carries an important corollary: When we put forward arguments of our own, we assume that our opponents are intellectually and morally capable of understanding our reasoning. Moreover, we do everything in our power to furnish truth in as clear and straightforward a fashion as circumstances allow. [5] Why is this so important? Ideology—by which I do not refer to conservatism or modern liberalism—frequently presumes precisely the opposite, namely that most people cannot recognize truth due to their inherent biases. The ideologue is a person who claims to be beyond all bias and therefore, infallible. Of course, the truth itself is not unbiased! [6] If, for example, a CEO argues against government interference in corporate pay structures, the principle of charity demands that we consider her argument in its strongest formulation, even if we vehemently disagree. We do not dismiss her out of hand because it may be in her personal interest to avoid governmental scrutiny of her pay. If her argument is a poor one, we bolster it as best we can under the principle of charity, and then we explain carefully and clearly why we believe her argument to be incorrect. We assume that she is intellectually and morally capable of understanding our reply; otherwise, what would be the point in replying? [7] To assume otherwise is not harmless dishonesty in pursuit of a greater good; rather, it is dangerous mischief that undermines the entire process of political debate by failing to give all opinions a fair and equal hearing, while excluding important perspectives from the debate [8] For the truth is frequently in one person's interest and against another's. The interests of the slave and the slaveholder are hopelessly at odds; but who would seriously suggest that the slave's argument for his freedom be dismissed because his bias and self-interest render his judgment untrustworthy? [9] Those who wield the biases of others as a shield by which to defend their arguments succeed only in exposing the weakness of their own judgment. As the great liberal philosopher, John Stuart Mill, declared, In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man every acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.1 2007
|
