Charity

Charity is a complex matter which requires great control skill. If it is too less applied, it will tend in the long run to hard-hearted stingyness which will roughly argue as follows: The present amount of my altruistic devotion does not suffice to improve other people's living conditions. Why not save it for my own affairs? Too bad, though, we can only be aware of our interests, but not of the changing conditions under which we might achieve them. We never can tell when charity might acquire the desired status of a favour which when the time will have come will insist on remuneration. We run the risk of misjudge the investive value of obligingness.
On the other hand excessive charity will tend to change the actant; who has given generously before might become a petitioner himself. That phenomenon may be rare, but should for the sake of completeness not go unnoticed, for once again it proves the asymmetrical character of so-called friendship. Charity as an abstract principle does not care who grants it to whom; the impoverished benefactor/benefactress, however, will do. Like so many other things, charity is a matter of the right measure.
Modern political life is mainly characterized by public arguing maintains a more deflationary idea of charity. Therefore it is so much distant from the ideal of discourse ethics which conceives different opinions above all to be exchange of positions which will allow the arguers to come out enriched, with adjusted positions and a deeper understanding. In fact, charity as being prepared not to deny contrary opinions are legitimate is very hard to find. Whoever dares step to the forum with an opinion of his own must loudly insist the other speakers - unless they do not hold a similar view - are ignorant bunglers who are not to be confided the country's fate to. We know that attitude too well: All people are lying -except me. Nobidy takes you seriously - only me. Public discussion for taht reason is a controversy, not a clarifying debate.
Conviction to be completely right, the opponent wrong, generates foam. Declaring a different opinion as incorrect is often a complacent semantic camouflage of the own ignorance. This way makes it easy, maybe a little too easy. It is just a matter of taking the easy way out to denounce a deviant opinion, to attest a moral and/or intellectual and/or mental defect. You will be sorry if you do not share my opinion.
Now what is comfortable is not necessarily what is reasonable; Ancient mythology enumerates several specimens of eccentrics who hold an opinion which differed from the majority's view, did not get a hearing and unfortunately had to pay for its ignorance. Theresias feared even Trojan gifts (and rightly so), but was not taken seriously. As the following slaughter showed, the majority was not reasonable. But what is reasonable is what the American philosopher Donald Davidson has called the Principle of Charity. It says it is an irrational strategy to deny someone's rationality only because he does not agree with us. Even if we cannot make out at first sight arguments backing an attitude or an action, this will not mean there are none. It is misjudging the Principle of Charity which displays arrogance. In calling someone stupid one confers that attribute on oneself.
So the Principle of Charity is a rare good in a knowledge-based society which constantly demands originality and intelligence while rejecting too many efforts in that direction as useless and senseless, thus preferring reliable failure to uncertain innovation. The prevalent Zeitgeist much too often poses the question Why instead of Why not. That is linked up with the discussion is organized in a strictly two-valued way: Either something is 100 per cent true or equally wrong. As we can easily imagine, this Everything Or Nothing tactics nips the Principle of Charity in the bud. Yet accepting reasons for a contrary opinion does not mean adopting them and deserting with flying colours.
Once again: The Principle of Charity is used too rarely. Whoever bears it in mind will run the risk of being isolated and falling victim to the running board traveller's dilemma: When everybody behaves foolishly, the person who refuses to take part will be the biggest fool. I want things to be changed, but do not want to start it off. For that reason the Principle of Charity is so problematic, rationality so risky. For instance: A and B are fiercely quarrelling over economic policy. A is foaming with rage and barking the terrible regulations strangulating the starving industry's flexibility must be finally abolished. On B's forehead the social vein is swelling, and he is hissingly propagating quite the contrary, capital is to be more fairly redistributed so that the inland demand will be stimulated. Now enter C, only armoured with Davidson's Principle of Charity, saying: But gentlemen, of course both views are up to a point justified. Want to bet A and B will stop short, only to let the club drop upon the unfortunate C in rare unanimity, just to return undisturbed to their confrontation, on condition enough dogmatic energy is left?
It just proves again one has to afford charity - paradoxically by being paid for it, namely as a professional mediator or a conflict therapist. Of course, this would not have to be that expensive, but as anything is purchasable, it is quite reassuring there is a price to reason.
However, the Principle of Charity will come to its inflationary border. It refers especially to dealing with its vowed enemies. Sooner or later (and in fact 'when' will be the most difficult question) we cannot afford to try to find reasonable arguments for anything. Some time the limit between rational liberality and cowardly relativism will be crossed. This is just when rationality turns again. So reason will be jeopardied on two sides: one the one hand if it centres on a single opinion, on the other if it is laid claim to any opinion. Only the golden mean can be useful - like so often: Tolerating an opposite view without quitting the own. It is well-founded dissent which is true communicative harmony, but not a bleak standard of opinion which calls itself consent.