Legal & DebateNEUTRAL — Rhetoric

Principle of Charity

What it is

Interpreting an ambiguous, incomplete, or clumsily stated argument in the way that makes it most reasonable and most likely true, given the speaker's evident intent, before evaluating it.

How it works

The phrase was coined by the philosopher N. L. Wilson in 1959 and made famous by W. V. O. Quine, who argued that a translator confronting apparently absurd assertions should suspect a difference in language before a difference in sanity; Donald Davidson later made charity a precondition of understanding anyone at all. Michael Scriven imported it into argument analysis: when reconstructing what someone said, supply the missing premise they would most plausibly accept, not the one easiest to attack. Pragma-dialectics encodes the same duty as its unexpressed-premise rule — you may not attribute to an opponent a premise they did not leave implicit. The mechanism it corrects is attributional: people read stupidity and hostility into out-group speech and reasonableness into their own, so uncharitable readings feel like perception rather than choice. Charity differs from steelmanning: charity aims at what the speaker meant; steelmanning aims at the best version whether or not they meant it. The principle can itself be gamed — “you are being uncharitable” deployed as a thought-terminator, or a “charitable reading” used to launder a statement that was perfectly clear.

Real-world examples

  • •Quine's radical-translation thought experiment: a field linguist who hears natives apparently asserting contradictions should conclude the translation is wrong, not that the speakers are irrational.
  • •Wikipedia's long-standing “assume good faith” editing norm is an institutionalized principle of charity for a community of strangers with no other basis for trust.
  • •A terse two-word email from a colleague read as “busy” rather than “angry” — the charitable reading is also, by base rate, usually the correct one.
  • •A debater reconstructing an opponent's enthymeme with the premise the opponent would endorse, then attacking that, rather than inserting an absurd premise and declaring victory.

Ethical guidelines

  • ●Charity governs interpretation, not excuse-making: once a statement is clear, the charitable reading is the accurate one, even when the accurate one is damning.
  • ●Charity is a prior, updated by track record. A speaker who repeatedly exploits charitable readings has spent theirs.
  • ●Do not demand charity for your side that you withhold from the other.
  • ●The speaker shares the burden: someone who is habitually ambiguous and then cries “uncharitable” is using the principle as cover for strategic ambiguity.

How to defend against it

  • ►State your reconstruction and ask for confirmation before you attack it: “So the missing step is that all X are Y — is that your view?” This forces both charity and accountability.
  • ►When accused of being uncharitable, ask the accuser to state the charitable reading and to confirm they endorse it. If they will not own it, the accusation was a deflection.
  • ►Separate ambiguous statements from plainly stated ones. Charity applies to the first; the second get read as written.
  • ►Apply the pragma-dialectical test to yourself: would the speaker accept the premise you just attributed to them? If not, you have changed the subject.

References

  1. Wilson, N. L. (1959). Substances without Substrata. Review of Metaphysics, 12(4), 521-539
    Coinage of the phrase “principle of charity.”
  2. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. MIT Press
    Radical translation and the maxim that apparently absurd assertions signal hidden differences of language.
  3. Davidson, D. (1973). On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 5-20
    Charity as a precondition of interpretation rather than an optional courtesy.
  4. Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. McGraw-Hill
    Application of the principle of charity to reconstructing arguments in informal logic.
  5. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press
    The unexpressed-premise rule among the ten rules of critical discussion.
Last reviewed
Suggest a correction

Detect Principle of Charity in any text

Paste any message, email, or article into our free Manipulation Detector to see if Principle of Charity or other techniques are being used on you.

Try the Detector FreeCreate Free Account