A senator proposes a modest increase in the top marginal tax rate. An opponent responds: 'The senator wants to confiscate the wealth of successful Americans and hand it to people who won't work.' What fallacy is being committed, and what would the principle of charity require instead?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The opponent is committing the straw man fallacy by substituting a radical version of the proposal (full wealth confiscation) for the actual, modest one (a marginal rate increase). The principle of charity would require engaging with the actual proposal on its merits — addressing whether a specific rate increase would generate the projected revenue, what its effects on investment might be, whether the revenue would be well-used — rather than defeating a position no one defended.
The test for whether a critique engages the actual position is simple: would the person who originally made the argument recognize the version being criticized? If not, the critique has gone astray. The senator would certainly not recognize 'confiscating wealth' as an accurate description of a marginal rate increase.
Question 2 True / False
Steelmanning an argument means restating it in its strongest form, even if that's stronger than how the opponent originally expressed it.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Yes — steelmanning goes beyond charity (which asks you not to distort) to active reconstruction of the best available version of the opposing position. This might mean supplying arguments the opponent didn't make but that support their conclusion, identifying the strongest evidence they could appeal to, or clarifying ambiguities in their favor. Critiques that survive steelmanning carry far more weight because they show the position fails even at its best.