RI Critical Thinking Unit D (Principle of Charity) 2023

UNIT D Principle of Charity

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY ▪ Recall: Contradiction (the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other is saying) is not an argument. ▪ An argument is to discover or establish truth, not a contest of wills. ▪ Upshot: be willing to concede if the other has a superior argument ▪ How? Be charitable! ▪ i.e. construct as strong a case for, and preserve as much truth as possible, for the position under investigation, even if it is not your own.

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY: EXAMPLE 1 ▪ Suppose someone is protesting outside an abortion clinic, and shouts, "Abortion kills a human being, therefore it is wrong." ▪ How should we reconstruct the argument? ▪ At least, we need to add the missing premise: P1. Abortion is an act that kills a human being. P2. If abortion is an act that kills a human being, then abortion is morally wrong. C. Abortion is morally wrong. (P1, P2) ▪ But is this a charitable reconstruction? Or it is too easy to knock down?

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY: EXAMPLE 2 ▪ (more sophisticated version) P1. Abortion is an act that kills an innocent human being. P2. If abortion is an act that kills an innocent human being, then abortion is morally wrong. C. Abortion is morally wrong. (P1, P2) ▪ A more defensible version of the position, but still pretty flimsy

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY: PRINCIPLE ▪ Principle: always address the best possible version of the argument, even if it is arguing for a position that is contrary to yours. ▪ Otherwise, your ‘victory’ over your opponent is not a true one; you have not dismissed his argument in a philosophically responsible way

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY: APPLICATION ▪ Reconstruct the argument in a logically valid form as far as possible ▪ (not possible if the author intends an inductive argument) ▪ Such reconstruction can be done even if it is not a literal reconstruction of the passage

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY: EXAMPLE 3 ▪ “Total pacifism might be a good principle if everyone were to follow it. But not everyone does, so it isn't” (Gilbert Harman, The Nature of Morality). ▪ If reconstructed literally: P1. If everyone follows total pacifism, then total pacifism would be a good idea. P2. Not everyone follows total pacifism. C. Total pacifism is not a good idea (P1, P2) ▪ Problem: Invalid! (If p then q, not p, therefore not q) ▪ But this isn’t probably what he meant

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY: EXAMPLE 3 ▪ Instead, he probably meant something like this: P1. Total pacifism is a good idea if and only if everyone follows total pacifism. P2. Not everyone follows total pacifism. C. Total pacifism is not a good idea. (P1, P2) ▪ This version is valid. ▪ Now you can focus on whether the premises are true.