2 ms·

If that is what the spirit is meant to be, I think that the principle of charity [0] is a stronger (less ambiguous) approach. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

• dahart 10y ago
  Yes, you're totally right. This is a clearer description of what I had in my head with my above comment. Re-reading the Reasonable Person Principle, there is the specific guidance (emphasized more than once) to seek personal resolution over public resolution of differences. That's not covered by the Principle of Charity, but I would think for most reasonable people in most circumstances, personal resolution of differences would be a byproduct of adopting the Principle of Charity. In any case, reducing ambiguity is always a good thing, but it does make me smile to think about trying to be crystally unambiguous about the wording of principles whose purpose is to acknowledge the existence of vagueness and ambiguity, and suggest outcomes will be improved by using the most reasonable and most charitable interpretations available. This has me wondering if there's a meta-level principle or eponymous law around somewhere concerning the ambiguity of language itself, there must be, right? Something like, 'when someone says something you find untrue, first assume you didn't understand what they said, and seek to validate your interpretation before disagreeing'...