How would you deconstruct the idea of 'bad faith'? It's a concept that feels in need of deconstruction and pithy redefinition like Harry Frankfurt with 'bullshit' ("indifference to truth/falsity").
Here's a starter link with some food for thought en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith
Conversation
Replying to
My first attempt: bad faith is the operating assumption that a counterparty is not as interested in the truth as you are, which therefore justifies deceptive practices on your part
14
2
22
Replying to
Bad faith is intention to breach the rules for an interaction, often, but not necessarily, grounded on presumption that other parties in the interaction have said intention
1
Replying to
The essence of bad faith is to use good faith to delay detection of cheating. This can come when the punishment for cheating will be less or deferred enough to justify the upside. Or more interestingly when you pretend to play one game while actually playing another.
2
1
7
Replying to
Bad faith treats true beliefs instrumentally. Truth is useful in defining how you can affect other agents’ beliefs (to your benefit) without being revealed as a liar. You need to be able to accurate reference past actions & others’ beliefs, so it’s more constrained than bullshit.
1
4
Replying to
a simulacra of yourself, put forth to induce the other into playing game A, while you play game B.
most useful when the rules of the games differ meaningfully and the gap confers an advantage
2






