Should charitable interpretation preserve truth or virtue?
In order to be both charitable and avoid imperialism, one should interpret other’s statements as being as fundamentally rational as you can. e.g. Interpret dancing as a funeral as celebrating the dead’s entrance into heaven, not glee at their death in order to preserve the assumption of their benevolence over the assumption of their having correct beliefs about what happens when we die. This requires more than a mere Bayesian or reliabilist epistemology, instead there must be an internalist structure of reasons.
Can we still follow the principle of charity in discussions with someone where we only adopt the non-reactive or outside view in responding to their beliefs, e.g. offering only debunking arguments against their beliefs, making all their reasons into causes. Can this respect their autonomy?
- Why are debunk8ng/generalising explanations of status signals so withering? Reasons/causes. Withering putdowns lists for egs.
Hanson and Callard on interpretation is a really great, clear discussion of the various tradeoffs in interpretation, models a lot of it as negotiation, equilibria between audiences and speakers, and how that can be stable vs. undermining.
I think there’s a connection here with trust being the trust to fulfill particular planning needs, not just care for their welfare in general. Truth is general, intentions and the virtue they can reflect are specific. If we just wanted to preserve the truth of texts/be beneficent we would have no reason not to perform straussian readings and completely change the apparent topic of what they’re talking about.