The Fallacious Nature Of The Principle Of Charity

To assume that someone is in error without any direct evidence in support of the stance is slanderous, not to mention irrational.  At most, very few would fully deny this.  To assume that someone does not mean whatever idiotic or contradictory things they say, though, or that the comments of a stranger should be treated with a default respect is likewise irrational.  It does not matter whether an assumption about a person or set of claims is positive or negative; by virtue of being an assumption, it is unjustifiable and fallacious.

It would be irrational and unjust to misrepresent an idea, claim, or person, and no one who is even slightly concerned with truth is unable to fully recognize this on their own.  Any sincere rationalist would be quick to affirm this.  However, the principle of charity does not stop here.  Those who condone it go beyond not straw manning a concept and aim to interpret someone's words in the best light possible, tending to treat people and ideas as if they are not unintelligent, laughable, or dangerous in cases where they clearly are.

The idea behind the principle of charity is one of tolerance and respect for diverse ideas (even though all of them cannot be correct), no matter how gratuitous or undeserving of respect the concept being defended with it is.  When one sees that any sort of assumption is an offense against reason (and therefore reality), it becomes clear that the goal behind the "principle of charity" is no less stupid than that of an approach to ideas and people that involves intentional misrepresent and malice.

If an idea is fallacious or inherently self-defeating, it cannot deserve protection.  If a person embraces a false or fallacious idea and does not reject it when it is refuted, being too irrational or stubborn to refute it themselves, they cannot deserve intellectual respect.  That someone who claims to seek knowledge would defend the ideas or people that interfere with that pursuit only shows that they do not truly care for rationality to begin with.  Rather, they are interested in tolerating stupidity or in making themselves feel better about liking fallacious figureheads for their ideologies.

Of course, they very well may not be so charitable to someone who challenges or refutes the principle of charity!  Hypocrisy does not itself disprove the claims of hypocrites, and reason alone exposes the epistemological folly within the rule of charity.  All the same, hypocrisy does reveal a fundamental inconsistency or insincerity, and many proponents of the rule of charity seem to merely want mercy for their own stupidity or the stupidity of whatever historical or contemporary authors they subjectively appreciate.

The principle of charity is rejected by logic for the same reason a plethora of other frameworks and concepts are rejected by reason: it rests entirely on an assumption that is used to argue for other assumptions.  There is nothing more that can be said in its defense beyond assuming the conclusion for the sake of preference or emotional comfort.  No one needs to make positive assumptions about another person in order to avoid slander, and thus there is neither a strictly logical nor moral basis for doing so.