Avoiding toxic charity in argumentation

Stevens, Katharina

Avoiding toxic charity in argumentation

dc.contributor.author	Stevens, Katharina
dc.date.accessioned	2025-10-09T21:14:56Z
dc.date.available	2025-10-09T21:14:56Z
dc.date.issued	2025
dc.description	Accepted author manuscript
dc.description.abstract	The interpersonal argumentative principle of charity is widely regarded as a legitimate norm for argumentation. Still, even a cursory look into the literature on argumentative charity reveals that charitable interpretations can easily become toxic. This means that they generate epistemic and moral losses by leading to distorting interpretations instead of preventing them, as the arguments for charity promise. This paper explores why argumentative charity becomes toxic and offers an attempt at identifying a kind of argumentative charity that fulfills the promises that make argumentative charity attractive. It does so by distinguishing three kinds of charity: Egocentric charity, which interprets the argument as strong from the interpreter’s point of view, emic charity, which interprets it as strong from the arguer’s point of view, and complex charity, which unites the two. Only complex charity can avoid toxicity.
dc.description.peer-review	Yes
dc.identifier.citation	Stevens, K. (2025). Avoiding toxic charity in argumentation. Topoi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-025-10238-9
dc.identifier.uri	https://hdl.handle.net/10133/7166
dc.language.iso	en
dc.publisher	Springer
dc.publisher.department	Department of Philosophy
dc.publisher.faculty	Arts and Science
dc.publisher.institution	University of Lethbridge
dc.publisher.url	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-025-10238-9
dc.subject	Principle of charity
dc.subject	Argumentation
dc.subject	Ethics of argumentation
dc.subject	Straw-man
dc.subject	Iron-man
dc.subject	Toxic charity
dc.subject	Critical thinking
dc.title	Avoiding toxic charity in argumentation
dc.type	Article