For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.

Many complain that people interpret them uncharitably. They’re often right. In heated political discussions, interpretations often turn mean and petty.

But there’s another problem, which is much less recognised, namely excessive charity and forgiveness towards your own side. A common move is to say that arguments that seem to make no sense are not to be taken literally. In effect, it becomes a motte and bailey.

This is as it were the other side of excessive lack of charity. People are unfair in both directions. They are too uncharitable towards their opponents. And they’re too charitable towards themselves and their allies.

And yet whilst lack of charity is a major meme, people don’t talk about excessive charity or excessive self-forgiveness to the same extent. And that makes it an easier move to make. People are alert to lack of charity, but they aren’t similarly alert to excessive charity.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it ended up that way. Lack of charity looks nasty and unsympathetic to third parties. Its unfairness is salient. By contrast, excessive charity evokes milder judgements. In extreme cases, everyone of course agrees that it looks ridiculous. But in general I think there’s an asymmetry. It may be related to our tendency to judge acts harsher than corresponding omissions.

And yet excessive charity also harms debates. For instance, it’s very difficult to ever pin an argument down when people keep changing their interpretation. So I suggest that just like we don’t accept that people are excessively uncharitable towards their opponents, so we shouldn’t accept that they are excessively charitable towards their own side.