Personally, I think principle of charity has more to do with having respect for ideas and arguments of the other person. I mean, let’s say that someone says that he doesn’t eat shrimps, because God forbids him from eating shrimps. If I am being charitable I am going to slightly alter his argument by saying that bible explicitly forbids shrimps. That way we don’t have to get sidetracked discussing other topics.
You said that shrimps are wretched in the eyes of lord, and while I agree that old testament explicitly forbids eating them… blah blah....
That way, we can actually have a meaningful and polite conversation. To illustrate negative example, let’s assume that he is going to counter by saying that God explicitly told him not to eat shrimps today. There is a certain temptation to rationalize his position to fit my worldview, say:
You say that your moral intuition forbids you from eating shrimps...
The problem is, that second use is opposite of charity or steel-manning. It is basically internalized version of saying “this guy is far too stupid to make a good argument, so I am going to help him by bringing him up to speed”. Principle of Charity turns into Principle of Hubris and conversation turns into one-man-show of intellectual masturbation from my side. I mean, look at me I can argue straw-fundamentalist Christian position using better than he himself can!
To summarize, assuming that your interlocutor is a smart person capable of making good arguments without your help is a good principle to follow, especially as it is often true.
If I am being charitable I am going to slightly alter his argument by saying that bible explicitly forbids shrimps.
I don’t know that this is being charitable. In this case to be charitable, I’d make the assumption that someone who told me God forbid them to eat something was drawing from OT law and not nitpick.
assuming that your interlocutor is a smart person capable of making good arguments without your help is a good principle to follow, especially as it is often true.
“Smart person” and “capable of making good arguments” are different things, and both are relative and open to many definitions.
As a former Fundamentalist Christian, I don’t claim to be smart or very good at making arguments, but I’d say it is not a useful heuristic to enter into a debate or discussion assuming a sincere adherent of that belief system is capable of making a rational argument.
Personally, I think principle of charity has more to do with having respect for ideas and arguments of the other person. I mean, let’s say that someone says that he doesn’t eat shrimps, because God forbids him from eating shrimps. If I am being charitable I am going to slightly alter his argument by saying that bible explicitly forbids shrimps. That way we don’t have to get sidetracked discussing other topics.
That way, we can actually have a meaningful and polite conversation. To illustrate negative example, let’s assume that he is going to counter by saying that God explicitly told him not to eat shrimps today. There is a certain temptation to rationalize his position to fit my worldview, say:
The problem is, that second use is opposite of charity or steel-manning. It is basically internalized version of saying “this guy is far too stupid to make a good argument, so I am going to help him by bringing him up to speed”. Principle of Charity turns into Principle of Hubris and conversation turns into one-man-show of intellectual masturbation from my side. I mean, look at me I can argue straw-fundamentalist Christian position using better than he himself can!
To summarize, assuming that your interlocutor is a smart person capable of making good arguments without your help is a good principle to follow, especially as it is often true.
I don’t know that this is being charitable. In this case to be charitable, I’d make the assumption that someone who told me God forbid them to eat something was drawing from OT law and not nitpick.
“Smart person” and “capable of making good arguments” are different things, and both are relative and open to many definitions.
As a former Fundamentalist Christian, I don’t claim to be smart or very good at making arguments, but I’d say it is not a useful heuristic to enter into a debate or discussion assuming a sincere adherent of that belief system is capable of making a rational argument.