The principle of Charity follows that an individual should do their best to logically construe another person’s argument in the most transparent and unconfused fashion possible. The concept suggests that it is responsible for people to nurture the desire of wanting to comprehend what someone truly meant without dismissing their statements at face value but with the belief that perhaps they intended for their words to have a more positive impact (Hirsch, 2013). However, most people do not take enough time to rationally reconstruct other people’s words and thoughts on different matters, which would otherwise be useful in understanding the real intention, but only with reason.

In a recent backlash between advocates of the liberal and conservative, two individuals from opposite sides attracted media attention because of their reactions towards each other’s statements. The liberal advocate said in a press conference that it was the mandate of the government to take care of those who cannot fend for themselves in terms of affordable quality healthcare and general welfare. He continued to that it is the responsibility that all persons contribute the little they make, and support the cause of universal healthcare through tax. However, many individuals from the other camp responded to the speech citing laziness and unnecessary dependency. They accused the other party of justifying laziness, and that poverty is a choice. They further stated how unfair it is that leaders would want to force other people’s responsibilities on those who work tirelessly to better the quality of life.

It is somewhat disheartening to realize what started as a discussion for the betterment of citizen’s quality of life ended up being a spirited misrepresentation of arguments. On close examination, the liberal side only seems to be advocating for the rights and welfare of the unemployed, the terminally ill, the old and those who genuinely cannot no means of significant income. The other side, unfortunately, misrepresents, what seems to be a call for humanity into something in support of laziness, which cultivates throw-and-throw situation of insults and accusations. There is also a good chance that the individuals at the conservative side also meant well and did not want people to feel forced into a position they did not agree. Both teams are fighting for the right of the people; the problem is that they are not taking enough time to understand their counterparts (Lucida, 2019).

It, therefore, means that the misunderstandings were not deliberate as all of them only wanted the best for the people. However, the repercussion was a divided nation; one on foundations that ironically support their rights and freedoms. If only these leaders took their time to rationally reconstruct the other camp’s ideas and their most favorable outcomes, then there wouldn’t be so many people belonging to very extreme sides spreading hate.

There are areas in which one could improve in the quest to understand other more effectively and favorably. Firstly, the world would be more peaceful if people did to others what they would want those people to do to them. This reality is only achievable if individuals assume that others are as reasonable and rational as they are before dismissing their arguments. It would help people to reveal their intentions, and in this way, people can have healthier discussions. Secondly, it is wiser and more intelligent to be charitable in interpretations in the quest to improve one’s argument and, to avoid confrontations. People usually are more willing to hear such a person’s side of the story.

References

Hirsch, E. (2013). Charity to charity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 86(2), 435-442.

Lucida, H. (2019). Health Insurance Exchanges Fulfill Both Liberal and Conservative Goals. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/health-insurance-exchanges-fulfill-both-liberal-and-conservative-goals/