Principle of Charity / Charitable Reading

ㅣam thinking of starting a new book that's organized around the idea of charitable reading.

So, what is the principle of charity? It is the practice of interpretting a text or argument in the most favorable way possible. For example, let's pretend I have a friend who has made the following statements:

1. A Prius is a machine.

2. A Prius is a hybrid automobile.

3. A Prius is an extremely efficient vehicle.

4. A Prius is a marvel of engineering.

5. A Prius is the finest car ever built.

6. Owning a Prius makes one morally superior.

7. A Prius is made from the prayers of angels.

If I'm super uncharitable, I might reject 2 through 7. "It's not a real car," I might say while greasing the exposed valves on my 1914 Hupmobile. On the other hand, if I'm a delusional fanboy I might accept all the statements, including the patently false number 7, as gospel.

The principle of charity says I should try to interpret as many statements as possible (but only if they are possible) in a favorable light. Even though my original opinion of the Prius is roughly "it's a boring sedan with some moderately interesting technology that I don't care about very much," I might say something like this:

1. Obviously true.

2. Yes.

3. Okay, yes. A Prius gets good gas mileage for a midsized car.

4. I can certainly see why you'd think so. First successful, mass produced hybrid and all.

5. Oh, okay. It must really fit your needs well.

6. Hmm. Okay, that's a pretty big claim, but I can see how Prius ownership might correlate with greater concern with the common good of some sort.

7. I'm pretty sure it's made from plastic, aluminum and steel ... Perhaps you are speaking in some sort of metaphor I don't understand.

So, in philosophy, you're always supposed to approach a text charitably so that you can minimize your own confirmation bias. Let me explain how that would look in practice. If I, the charitable reader, were to speak with Mr. Hupmobile, I could probably have a reasonable conversation and maybe learning something about external valves. I could also probably learn something from the delusional fanboy. However, if Mr. Hupmobile and Mr. Prius met, they are almost certainly not going to be able to speak or learn anything.

So, I know this works on the level of texts. What I'm not certain of is if this sort of thing might be useful in the arena of 2017 public discourse. I feel that modern public discourse is pretty toxic and unproductive, but I'm not sure if the principle of charity might work to cure the disease.

Thanks,

Ben

You are wrong. Charity is for losers. Every statement needs to be parsed into individual words that can be interpreted in the worst possible light, because that serves me best.

Loser.

Not sure if I agree with you about public discourse. St Augustine felt that the object of conflict is peace if I remember correctly. The Toyota Pious started out as an element of ' virtue signalling' now level headed guys on this forum are fanbois for level headed reasons. I'd never drive one as I like to say "Not even to get laid."

As I was reading I thought... confirmation bias, but I see you addressed that. The internet has changed the way we communicate. Never before has it been easier to exercise your confirmation bias, and never before has the backfire effect appeared more prevalent.

"Virtue signalling" is an ugly phrase that I've promised myself I'll never use, because it's just a glib way to dismiss an action that you don't agree with as a hollow, superficial gesture. I first properly understood, and was tempted to use the phrase when many American companies recently promised to scale back foreign expansion and invest locally instead. But I won't. Nothing good can come of reducing arguments to partisan catchphrases.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Pretty certain ' virtue signalling' didn't come from Congress or the political parties. So not a partisan power play. Academia is the most likely culprit. Was the St Augustine quote equally glib?

Partisan doesn't mean "invented by politicians" or "used exclusively by one political party."

"Value/Virtue signalling" is wholly political and has no place in rational discourse. It's basically shorthand for "I disagree with the motivations behind your actions, therefore I disregard them as insincere brown-nosing."

I don't know about text reading, but my wife and I demonstrate the 2 sides of this coin almost every time we speak to the same person. I swear my ears work differently than hers...

Zomby Woof wrote: As I was reading I thought... confirmation bias, but I see you addressed that. The internet has changed the way we communicate. Never before has it been easier to exercise your confirmation bias, and never before has the backfire effect appeared more prevalent.

I have noticed the same thing. Just the way that media has devolved away from a few big outlets with reasonable levels of viewpoint diversity (ie NBC in 1993) we have Infowars and Huffpost or other outlets specifically tailored to whatever bubble you prefer.

I feel this is poisoning public discourse, though I'd like more info on Augustin's point (which I don't think I understand).

All of which got me thinking about a couple of my favorite podcasts. The first is a philosophy program, The Partially Examined Life, hosted by four dudes who are pretty significantly to my left.

However, they are dedicated to the principle of charity and call each other out when one or more is being unfair. Their program on Burke was excellent and enlightening and I learned a ton. Similarly, I know at least two of them had axes to grind with a woman called bell hooks, (intentionally uncapitalized, btw) and it didn't stop them from giving her a fair chance when they did an episode on her works.

The second one I'm thinking of is Hardcore History with Dan Carlin, who is to my right and a lot more idealistic than I am. However, he always tries to tell his stories from the people involved's sympathetic point of view.

I'm thinking of the episode "Prophets of Doom" where 17th century Muenster Germany gets taken over by cult leaders. Yes, this really happened.

It would be so easy to sit back and mock those religious nutjobs and make fun of gullible 17th century peasants. Instead, Carlin focuses on how perfectly normal people, behaving normally given their situations, could end up dominated by cult leaders and attempting to resist cannon fire with the power of prayer.

Needless to say, that's about a million times more enlightening than an uncharitable reading would be.

Philosophy, at its core, is simply systematic thinking. I think that systematic thought deserves a much bigger role in society.