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
Say both you and your friend have separate lemonade stands. Your friend advertises that “Dentist say lemonade is good for your teeth!” on the side of his stand. Your friend however knows this isn’t true. They made up the lie to sell more lemonade. They are arguing in bad faith because they know their argument is false.
You however take their argument at face value since you’re five and don’t know any better. You also set up a sign for your lemonade stand saying “Lemonade is good for teeth!” because you want more people to know the health benefits of lemonade. Even though you’re wrong, you’re actually arguing in good faith because you genuinely believe the argument you’re pushing.
Bad faith accusations are usually difficult to prove. If you’re lucky there might be text messages or e-mail of someone saying one thing while they’ve been publicly stating another but rarely will we ever see that. It’s a good critical thinking skill to consider how one might benefit from the argument they’re making. I’d rather get my teeth advise from a expert like a dentist than a lemonade seller with a conflict of interest.
Say both you and your friend have separate lemonade stands. Your friend advertises that “Dentist say lemonade is good for your teeth!” on the side of his stand. Your friend however knows this isn’t true. They made up the lie to sell more lemonade. They are arguing in bad faith because they know their argument is false.
You however take their argument at face value since you’re five and don’t know any better. You also set up a sign for your lemonade stand saying “Lemonade is good for teeth!” because you want more people to know the health benefits of lemonade. Even though you’re wrong, you’re actually arguing in good faith because you genuinely believe the argument you’re pushing.
Bad faith accusations are usually difficult to prove. If you’re lucky there might be text messages or e-mail of someone saying one thing while they’ve been publicly stating another but rarely will we ever see that. It’s a good critical thinking skill to consider how one might benefit from the argument they’re making. I’d rather get my teeth advise from a expert like a dentist than a lemonade seller with a conflict of interest.
Bad Faith is actually a fairly broad topic, and changes depending on the context.
In casual conversation, my understanding of bad faith is when someone presents the opposition in an overly negative light. This is used to attempt to label them as a “bad person,” which lets them circumvent arguing the actual topic at hand, and simply dismiss everything they say as irrelevant because it came from a “bad person.”
Abortion is an example where I see excessive bad faith arguments from both the american left and right.
Far Left person: “The only reason people on the right want to reduce the number of abortions is to restrict the rights of women! They hate women!”
Far Right person: “The only reason people on the left want to have greater access to abortions is because they do not value human life! They don’t care about the baby at all!”
These are bad faith arguments in my mind as they fail to consider the *positive* aspects of the other side. It is unlikely that the majority of people are motivated by a negative idea, instead they are pushing for what they believe to be an overall societal good.
The Far Left person is motivated by wanting greater bodily autonomy for women, and to see less children born into impoverished scenarios.
The Far Right person is motivated by wanting to defend the rights of the unborn child who cannot defend themselves, and view the termination of the pregnancy as adjacent to murder.
Both sides have legitimate points to argue from. Most people on the right could concede that children born into impoverished scenarios with mothers who aren’t ready to take care of them is a generally bad thing for society. Most people on the left could concede that defending the rights of an unborn child is a worthy cause, and that abortion should not be treated flippantly.
Most people are fed so many extreme talking points that paint the other side as “bad people,” that they perceive them as an immoral enemy. When really, most Americans would actually be able to shake hands and agree on a fairly reasonable middle ground.
Bad Faith is actually a fairly broad topic, and changes depending on the context.
In casual conversation, my understanding of bad faith is when someone presents the opposition in an overly negative light. This is used to attempt to label them as a “bad person,” which lets them circumvent arguing the actual topic at hand, and simply dismiss everything they say as irrelevant because it came from a “bad person.”
Abortion is an example where I see excessive bad faith arguments from both the american left and right.
Far Left person: “The only reason people on the right want to reduce the number of abortions is to restrict the rights of women! They hate women!”
Far Right person: “The only reason people on the left want to have greater access to abortions is because they do not value human life! They don’t care about the baby at all!”
These are bad faith arguments in my mind as they fail to consider the *positive* aspects of the other side. It is unlikely that the majority of people are motivated by a negative idea, instead they are pushing for what they believe to be an overall societal good.
The Far Left person is motivated by wanting greater bodily autonomy for women, and to see less children born into impoverished scenarios.
The Far Right person is motivated by wanting to defend the rights of the unborn child who cannot defend themselves, and view the termination of the pregnancy as adjacent to murder.
Both sides have legitimate points to argue from. Most people on the right could concede that children born into impoverished scenarios with mothers who aren’t ready to take care of them is a generally bad thing for society. Most people on the left could concede that defending the rights of an unborn child is a worthy cause, and that abortion should not be treated flippantly.
Most people are fed so many extreme talking points that paint the other side as “bad people,” that they perceive them as an immoral enemy. When really, most Americans would actually be able to shake hands and agree on a fairly reasonable middle ground.
Bad Faith is actually a fairly broad topic, and changes depending on the context.
In casual conversation, my understanding of bad faith is when someone presents the opposition in an overly negative light. This is used to attempt to label them as a “bad person,” which lets them circumvent arguing the actual topic at hand, and simply dismiss everything they say as irrelevant because it came from a “bad person.”
Abortion is an example where I see excessive bad faith arguments from both the american left and right.
Far Left person: “The only reason people on the right want to reduce the number of abortions is to restrict the rights of women! They hate women!”
Far Right person: “The only reason people on the left want to have greater access to abortions is because they do not value human life! They don’t care about the baby at all!”
These are bad faith arguments in my mind as they fail to consider the *positive* aspects of the other side. It is unlikely that the majority of people are motivated by a negative idea, instead they are pushing for what they believe to be an overall societal good.
The Far Left person is motivated by wanting greater bodily autonomy for women, and to see less children born into impoverished scenarios.
The Far Right person is motivated by wanting to defend the rights of the unborn child who cannot defend themselves, and view the termination of the pregnancy as adjacent to murder.
Both sides have legitimate points to argue from. Most people on the right could concede that children born into impoverished scenarios with mothers who aren’t ready to take care of them is a generally bad thing for society. Most people on the left could concede that defending the rights of an unborn child is a worthy cause, and that abortion should not be treated flippantly.
Most people are fed so many extreme talking points that paint the other side as “bad people,” that they perceive them as an immoral enemy. When really, most Americans would actually be able to shake hands and agree on a fairly reasonable middle ground.
It is largely a ‘catch all’ for many common fallacies. Essentially you are either changing the facts essentially to ‘well what about’ (insane situation that is not actually being discussed) to try and get the other party to either concede their point or defend it despite these new facts. It isn’t the same as a straw man argument but it is similar
A bad faith argument is one in which you are being insincere about your intentions.
A good example is the following.
You are trying to sell something. You are asking $120 for it.
Someone comes to you, and says, I’ll buy it for $100.
However, they’re negotiating in bad faith; they don’t intend to pay anything at all for what you’re selling. If you agreed to sell it to them for $100, they would find an excuse for why they can’t pay $100 for it; now they’re offering $80, and if you met that ask, they would go even lower, because their only aim is to destroy you, not to engage in an honest transaction.
It is largely a ‘catch all’ for many common fallacies. Essentially you are either changing the facts essentially to ‘well what about’ (insane situation that is not actually being discussed) to try and get the other party to either concede their point or defend it despite these new facts. It isn’t the same as a straw man argument but it is similar
It is largely a ‘catch all’ for many common fallacies. Essentially you are either changing the facts essentially to ‘well what about’ (insane situation that is not actually being discussed) to try and get the other party to either concede their point or defend it despite these new facts. It isn’t the same as a straw man argument but it is similar
A bad faith argument is where they argue using only fallacy, because their view is objectively wrong and they can’t ‘win’ any other way
Their goal then is not to reach understanding, it’s just to wear the other person down until they get bored of talking to them. Some people like that so much that they’ll form groups to argue like that with people, in bad faith, purely because they find it entertaining (it isn’t much effort to argue in fallacy, and it’s frustrating for the person they’re talking to, so it’s low effort high reward if you find annoying other people to be entertaining)
It’s also just used as a way to derail discussions that don’t involve them but that they don’t want to happen, by interjecting in a way where a critical mass of others will ‘take the bait’ and respond to them instead
The ‘in bad faith’ part of “a bad faith argument” also tends to suggest that they know they are doing it
Latest Answers