Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 475504

Shown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.

The Principle of Charity

Posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 16:01:56

aka giving people the benefit of the doubt
aka innocent until proven guilty

if people are quick to assume the worst
then they tend to evoke the worst in others
in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Not that that excuses peoples annoyed reaction - but that is what tends to happen nevertheless...

Sigh.

Not a lot to be done but to ignore it
Try not to take it personally
Try not to react to it

But people will get annoyed.
It can feel rather demoralising...

Re: The Principle of Charity » alexandra_k

Posted by Shortelise on March 26, 2005, at 16:52:51

In reply to The Principle of Charity, posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 16:01:56

I agree wholeheartedly, AK.

One of the down sides to the net is how quickly we can react - without thought, we can zip off a note that we later regret.

I try to write the note and not send it for a while. It often never gets sent.

ShortE

Re: The Principle of Charity

Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 17:47:32

In reply to Re: The Principle of Charity » alexandra_k, posted by Shortelise on March 26, 2005, at 16:52:51

Hmm. I have been thinking about what I said... That might be a bit of an extension of the 'principle of charity' as written.

It is supposed to be a principle that applies to the 'interpretation' or 'translation' of arguments. You see, sometimes you need to 'reconstruct' arguments so as to make their structure clear. You have to do this so it is easier to evaluate them. You have to put in implicit premises etc.

Here is an example (in case someone is interested). It is just an example of an argument - not meaning to start controversy...

Abortion is deliberately killing an innocent human being, so obviously it’s morally wrong.

This argument has an implicit (unstated premiss). Something like “Killing innocent human beings is morally wrong.” or “All killing is morally wrong” or “Killing humans is always morally wrong,” but the latter ones are less plausible. The principle of charity dictates that when faced with an incomplete argument, you should complete it charitably: add the premise which makes the resulting argument as strong as possible. Why be so nice? Well, if you’re having a dispute with someone and you attack a version of their argument which isn’t as strong as it could be, your opponent can deflect your criticisms by saying that you’ve misconstrued their argument, whereas if you attach the strongest possible version of their argument, your opponent will have to actually engage with your criticisms.

So the thought is that we should apply the principle of charity in argument reconstruction. It is aka 'don't attribute stupid beliefs to smart people'. It also saves time with respect to critiquing the argument.

The principle of charity also comes up in the context of attrubuting beliefs to peoples. We try to attribute beliefs that are true. If in doubt: be nice.

But I think it applies here too....

Hmm.

Wanna write a thesis anyone???

Re: PS

Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 17:50:33

In reply to Re: The Principle of Charity, posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 17:47:32

the latter two are less plausible because if you ACCIDENTALLLY kill an innocent human being (and were taking due care) then we tend not to hold people morally responsible for such unfortunate accidents.

Thats why the latter two aren't as plausible.

Just FYI

Back to work now...

Re: PS

Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 17:54:53

In reply to Re: PS, posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 17:50:33

Abortion is deliberately killing an innocent human being, so obviously it’s morally wrong.

Actually, my above point would apply to all of the above candidate implicit premises.

How about 'deliberate killing of innocent human beings is always morally wrong'??

That would be more charitable.
Though probably false...
Counter-example anyone???

Enough already.
I know :-)

This is the end of the thread.

Show another thread

Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ

Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.