Honestly, I’ve seen a few different definitions for it, from an argument that’s just meant to br antagonistic, another is that it’s one where the one making seeks to win no matter what, another is where the person making it knows it’s wrong but makes it anyway.
Can anyone nail down what arguing in bad faith actually is for me? If so, that’d be great.
In: 647
A bad faith argument tends to argue the opponent’s *position* rather than how they *arrive* at that position.
If Person 1 says that “we believe A because of X,Y,Z”, to counter argue in good faith you must show why X, Y, and Z are wrong.
If instead you ignore X, Y, and Z because “Person 1 in fact doesn’t believe in A at all”, you are arguing in bad faith.
When it comes down to it, a good faith argument assumes that the person making the original claim believes what they are saying.
Original claim: “The earth is flat and here’s the science to prove it!”
Bad faith argument: “Flat earthers are trolls who are only looking to piss people off at we need not listen to them.”
Good faith argument: “The earth is round and here’s why flat earth science is garbage.”
The thing is, the bad faith argument in this case isn’t necessarily wrong and it’s not a bad idea to ignore flat earthers. But a good faith argument can seldom be used as a weapon to silence the truth in the way bad faith ones can. Bad faith arguments can be wielded by the powerful against the weak or unpopular, regardless of the truth. And a better world is one that seeks the truth over moral necessity.
Latest Answers