The Story of the Principle of Charity

We have to consider the Principle of Charity because, for one, there may simply not be enough time to state what people term ‘the obvious’. For example, someone sets fire into the building you’re in. You expect people to come bursting past your little cubicle shouting ‘FIRE’ instead of, ‘It’s over 27000 C° in the boss’ office and there are orange flickering thingies on the twenty-seventh floor. Therefore I conclude that something unforseen and possibly dangerous is happening upstairs and to evacuate before the next ten hours.’ You also expect people not to be stopping to consider this announcement, then arranging for a meeting in two minutes to discuss the relative merits of the suggested option. NOO I DON’T WANT TO DIE says the part of your brain that prefers the rest of the body to continue functioning, and you run. Even if it turns out that there is no fire after all, you would not fault your earlier response to that stimulus eg. leaping out of your little cubicle to dive for the stairs, because there are times where a suspension of belief is necessary – better, as they say, to be safe than sorry.*

‘Fire!’ is also an incident where the Principle of Charity is most useful. Picky picky philosophers can ignore pressing imperatives like these – Archimides was one such, I think – possibly only if they are so used to neglecting the side of their brain that wants very much to see the next sunrise. Other people can dismiss the Principle of Charity too if, for example, they are so busy with the administration that they just don’t realise why some loony is doing laps around the building continuously shouting one inane word. And, surprise, perhaps they decide to stay put and maybe complete the filing before they reluctantly head for the emergency exit – or are conveniently roasted. The End.

Natural selection is just not made for some people.

But the Principle of Charity can be applied for situations which don’t involve life and death either. For example, when you tell your mother good morning, you don’t expect her to demand you to state your premises unless it’s a Monday. Greetings demand the Principle of Charity because their forms are truncated and usually taken for granted. One is likely only to question them if it’s socially appropriate – often when
a) one is on really good terms with the other person and wants an interesting conversation, or
b) just doesn’t agree with the statement and is merely expressing one’s viewpoint, or
c) one is a dunce. Or a philosopher too far gone into the deep end of etymology. Or so I see it. Tell me if you’ve got any more!

The Principle of Charity is also used to decipher lines couched in socially accepted terms which everyone is expected to understand – such as, perhaps: ‘It’s really rainy – so no football match today I guess.’ Without the Principle of Charity, there would be no link between the premise and the conclusion; and, considering how commonplace such remarks are, not applying the expected assumptions (eg. football matches are never played on really rainy days) as is expected in a conversation would be ridiculous. *Figures of speech, too, require a suspension of belief. ‘Better to be safe than sorry’ is a good example. People learning English may need it carefully explained to them. ‘Ramrod-straight.’ ‘Poorer than church mice.’

There are times, however, where it is difficult or dangerous to make uneccessary assumptions, and therefore people must tread carefully. Let’s say a lawyer is interrogating a man charged for serial murders. When the lawyer asks, ‘Did you kill this or that person?’ and the defendant replies, ‘I was holding the knife at that time,’ the logical conclusion – applying the Principle of Charity – would be to assume that, yes, if the answer that the defendant gave was the answer to the lawyer’s question, that the defendant did indeed kill this or that person. However, there is no obvious link between the question and the answer in themselves, and since in court all the evidence must be clearly collected and collated in order for the judge to dispense a fair sentence, the defendant’s reply cannot suffice as a substantial response to the question. Especially, for example, if the victims all had no knife wounds. At this point in time the lawyer would probably repeat the question and, to keep things clear, request for an answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

The Principle of Charity is should also not be applied in conditions where linkage between of premise to evidence to conclusion is crucial. This is because in order to prove a point beyond all logical doubt, all areas which can be questioned must be carefully probed, explored, acknowledged – and if possible, clarified. This would be because the Principle of Charity by its very nature makes leaps of logic which calls into the picture assumptions which may be unsuitable for building an argument.

And this is why the Principle of Charity applies!