ABSTRACT
We invoke the notion of rationality both to interpret others and to assess them as so interpreted. Charity pressures us to understand one another as being rational to the extent that evidence licenses us to do so. But if there is always some way to understand others as rational, then there may be little to no room left to assess people as rational or irrational. Here I see how far this idea can be pushed. I describe five ways we can reinterpret others as rational. For instance, those who appear to hold inconsistent beliefs may, in fact, merely be ambivalent, which itself is no failure of rationality. By understanding others as ambivalent rather than inconsistent, we can charitably avoid ascribing irrationality to others. In addition to this “ambivalence move,” I also describe four other strategies: the different-contents move, the different-attitude move, the different-times move, and, when all else fails, the different-subjects move.
