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
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
Replying to
Isn’t it simpler than that? “Bad faith” is aiming to appear truthful when you know you are not.
1
Show replies
Replying to
Ongoing, unconscious incuriousness toward self-serving conclusions and evidence that might contradict + reflexive denial of any other viewpoint?
E.g. "I don't need to read Darwin to know evolution is wrong" - existing belief strong enough to overwhelm any future info; why read?
2
2
2
If I know evolution is true and I outwardly signal otherwise, to me, that's just lying (perhaps a different kind of bad faith)
I think my formulation is more common, but that's probably just my incuriousness 😂
1
1
people will often only buy things that are worthless
Replying to
bad faith? i have zero to negative interest in your welfare and lots of interest in my own
1
5
Replying to
Close, but substitute a more generic goal in lieu of "truth" to reflect the other areas where people operate in bad faith
Replying to
a defensive move to distract, delay, and obfuscate an argument in which you know that your position is purely self-serving at the expense of others and indifensible on the grounds of common humanity, which is a principle you plan to subvert for as long as you can get away with it
GIF
1
Replying to
Bad faith is instrumentally misrepresenting something (quite broad, could be beliefs, confidences, emotional orientations, identity) in order to bring about a change in someone else's thinking (not necessarily the person being spoken to).








