Should one assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary?

Pro

 * Assuming good faith bar conclusive evidence to the contrary can improve one's behavior; one can be less grumpy and less quickly jump to the conclusion of bad faith.
 * As argument against said: without any context, without knowing that one is not in risk-averse context, assuming good faith can lead to very bad outcomes.
 * One can be more nuanced as an alternative: e.g. do not jump to unwarranted conclusions of bad faith/malicious intent, even in the face of behavior that appears harmful.

Con

 * Assuming something one does not know to be true is an epistemically invalid cognitive operation. An intellectually honest and circumspect person does not assume something given no evidence, but rather, initially takes an I-don't-know stance given the initial absence of evidence in any direction.
 * Without context, the motion has to be rejected. Some contexts are very risk averse, and these require a more risk averse initial stance; other contexts are much less risk average, and there, erring on the side of assuming good faith is more tolerable/viable strategy.