El pr\u00f3ximo martes 16 de junio, a las 12:30, en la sala de Juntas de Filosof\u00eda, tendr\u00e1 lugar una nueva sesi\u00f3n del seminario TeC-FiloLab. En esta ocasi\u00f3n nos acompa\u00f1ar\u00e1 Marcin Lewi\u0144ski, de la Universidade NOVA de Lisboa. Abajo ten\u00e9is el t\u00edtulo y el resumen de su charla, as\u00ed como una breve nota biogr\u00e1fica.<\/p>\n
Title<\/strong>: Unethical charity in interpretation<\/em><\/p>\n Abstract<\/strong>:\u00a0The talk discusses two \u201cun-ethical\u201d senses of the Principle of Charity (PC) as used in argumentation theory. In the discipline, PC is a methodical guideline to adopt the strongest possible reconstruction of an argument, rather than some other plausible but weaker or flawed version of it. While it might sound as simple as that, the principle is far from being straightforward, as attested by the particularly lively debate around it, both in argumentation theory (Stevens, ed. 2025; Lewi\u0144ski 2026) and in the philosophy of language (Abreu et el., ed. 2025).<\/p>\n In this talk, I first caution that ethically driven takes on charity developed in philosophy and argumentation theory (Vandervelde 2021; Pru\u015b & Sikora 2023; Lockard 2025) run the risk of generating or perpetuating ethically dubious consequences; notably, a patronizing relation between the charity giver and taker and a blanket immunity to criticism by the (possibly strategic) charity taker. In this sense, \u201cun-ethical\u201d means ethically wrong, immoral. To attenuate for such perils of \u201ctoxic charity\u201d (Stevens 2025), I will, second, re-examine the link between the philosophical and argumentation theoretic takes on charity to argue for an understanding of the PC that has nothing to do with ethical concerns. So conceived, the PC is, rather, a conceptual requirement to intelligibly interpret language and argumentation in the first place. (As Donald Davidson said in an interview about his prominent account of the principle of charity: \u201cit\u2019s not a matter of being kind to people; it\u2019s the condition for understanding them at all.\u201d) In this sense, \u201cun-ethical\u201d means irrelevant to ethics.<\/p>\n Finally, however, I will attempt to show that it\u2019s precisely the un<\/em>ethical charity (in the second sense) that paves the way for otherwise ethical\u00ad\u2014that is: free, fair, and egalitarian\u2014practices of argumentation.<\/p>\n Bio<\/strong>: Marcin Lewi\u0144ski is Associate Professor at the NOVA Institute of Philosophy, NOVA University of Lisbon, Portugal. He specializes in the philosophy of language and philosophy of argument, employing conceptual analysis to study public controversies over issues such as environment, migration, or social exclusion. His recent work includes papers on \u00abillocutionary pluralism\u00bb (Synthese<\/em>, 2021) and \u00abthe concept of argument\u00bb (Argumentation<\/em>, 2025), and a monograph (coauthored with Mark Aakhus), Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue<\/em> (2023), published by the Cambridge UniversityThe talk discusses two \u201cun-ethical\u201d senses of the Principle of Charity (PC) as used in argumentation theory. In the discipline, PC is a methodical guideline to adopt the strongest possible reconstruction of an argument, rather than some other plausible but weaker or flawed version of it. While it might sound as simple as that, the principle is far from being straightforward, as attested by the particularly lively debate around it, both in argumentation theory (Stevens, ed. 2025; Lewi\u0144ski 2026) and in the philosophy of language (Abreu et el., ed. 2025).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" El pr\u00f3ximo martes 16 de junio, a las 12:30, en la sala de Juntas de Filosof\u00eda, tendr\u00e1 lugar una nueva sesi\u00f3n del seminario TeC-FiloLab. En esta ocasi\u00f3n nos acompa\u00f1ar\u00e1 Marcin Lewi\u0144ski, de la Universidade NOVA de Lisboa. Abajo ten\u00e9is el t\u00edtulo y el resumen de su charla, as\u00ed como una breve nota biogr\u00e1fica. Title: Unethical […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[29],"tags":[50,228,797,4508,4506],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8344"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8344"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8344\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8347,"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8344\/revisions\/8347"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpd.ugr.es\/~filolab\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}