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
The best example I can think of would be bad faith arguments using the First Amendment in the United States.
Some hypothetical group uses their freedom of speech, which is the foundation of your democratic society, to espouse beliefs and policy positions that undermine your democratic society, and therefore, the freedom of speech as a concept.
They don’t actually care about the freedom of speech, what they care about is their own goals and motivations. They use “freedom of speech” as a bludgeon to make opponents hesitate in shutting them down, they use it to make the case they’re “just asking questions,” or they use it to portray themselves as a victim by cloaking themselves in a fundamental value of our society. They do this all while “ignoring” (or conveniently omitting from their argument) that should they get their way, there will be no freedom of speech any more.
This is a bad faith use of the freedom of speech.
Another example I can think of that has emerged somewhat recently in our political discourse is the bad faith use of “ironic distance” in an argument or conversation. This is when someone floats a socially reprehensible idea to gauge the room for potential allies or just get the idea out there, and if someone calls them on it they retreat into “it was just a joke” or “I’m just asking questions,” again.
This is done in bad faith because it’s a belief the person really holds, but they’re pretending to just be joking or trying to be intellectually rigorous so they aren’t forced to publicly defend the position.
Regardless of the example, the key aspect of a bad faith argument or action is that the individual conceals their true self or beliefs in order to get what they want rather than trying to discern what is true or right. This distinction is most clearly discussed by Sartre, who talks about a professional waiter who is very good at his job but isn’t authentically being himself. He has to hide his true self in order to be the perfect waiter. He’s taking on the image of what he thinks society believes the perfect waiter to be and merely playacts the part.
In the above examples, our bad faith actors are playacting someone who believes in the institutions that form the foundation of our democratic society, or they’re playacting as an edgy joker when it’s really what they believe.
The best example I can think of would be bad faith arguments using the First Amendment in the United States.
Some hypothetical group uses their freedom of speech, which is the foundation of your democratic society, to espouse beliefs and policy positions that undermine your democratic society, and therefore, the freedom of speech as a concept.
They don’t actually care about the freedom of speech, what they care about is their own goals and motivations. They use “freedom of speech” as a bludgeon to make opponents hesitate in shutting them down, they use it to make the case they’re “just asking questions,” or they use it to portray themselves as a victim by cloaking themselves in a fundamental value of our society. They do this all while “ignoring” (or conveniently omitting from their argument) that should they get their way, there will be no freedom of speech any more.
This is a bad faith use of the freedom of speech.
Another example I can think of that has emerged somewhat recently in our political discourse is the bad faith use of “ironic distance” in an argument or conversation. This is when someone floats a socially reprehensible idea to gauge the room for potential allies or just get the idea out there, and if someone calls them on it they retreat into “it was just a joke” or “I’m just asking questions,” again.
This is done in bad faith because it’s a belief the person really holds, but they’re pretending to just be joking or trying to be intellectually rigorous so they aren’t forced to publicly defend the position.
Regardless of the example, the key aspect of a bad faith argument or action is that the individual conceals their true self or beliefs in order to get what they want rather than trying to discern what is true or right. This distinction is most clearly discussed by Sartre, who talks about a professional waiter who is very good at his job but isn’t authentically being himself. He has to hide his true self in order to be the perfect waiter. He’s taking on the image of what he thinks society believes the perfect waiter to be and merely playacts the part.
In the above examples, our bad faith actors are playacting someone who believes in the institutions that form the foundation of our democratic society, or they’re playacting as an edgy joker when it’s really what they believe.
The best example I can think of would be bad faith arguments using the First Amendment in the United States.
Some hypothetical group uses their freedom of speech, which is the foundation of your democratic society, to espouse beliefs and policy positions that undermine your democratic society, and therefore, the freedom of speech as a concept.
They don’t actually care about the freedom of speech, what they care about is their own goals and motivations. They use “freedom of speech” as a bludgeon to make opponents hesitate in shutting them down, they use it to make the case they’re “just asking questions,” or they use it to portray themselves as a victim by cloaking themselves in a fundamental value of our society. They do this all while “ignoring” (or conveniently omitting from their argument) that should they get their way, there will be no freedom of speech any more.
This is a bad faith use of the freedom of speech.
Another example I can think of that has emerged somewhat recently in our political discourse is the bad faith use of “ironic distance” in an argument or conversation. This is when someone floats a socially reprehensible idea to gauge the room for potential allies or just get the idea out there, and if someone calls them on it they retreat into “it was just a joke” or “I’m just asking questions,” again.
This is done in bad faith because it’s a belief the person really holds, but they’re pretending to just be joking or trying to be intellectually rigorous so they aren’t forced to publicly defend the position.
Regardless of the example, the key aspect of a bad faith argument or action is that the individual conceals their true self or beliefs in order to get what they want rather than trying to discern what is true or right. This distinction is most clearly discussed by Sartre, who talks about a professional waiter who is very good at his job but isn’t authentically being himself. He has to hide his true self in order to be the perfect waiter. He’s taking on the image of what he thinks society believes the perfect waiter to be and merely playacts the part.
In the above examples, our bad faith actors are playacting someone who believes in the institutions that form the foundation of our democratic society, or they’re playacting as an edgy joker when it’s really what they believe.
Let’s say there seems to be a problem with all the donuts being gluten free. I think we can all agree that not all of the donuts should be gluten free.
We sit at the negotiating table to pass a law that gluten free food needs extra sales tax to discourage its rampant spread.
I argue the minutia endlessly and demand rainbow sprinkles and gluten free donut holes with less than 0 gluten as well as hot dogs with no ketchup. You think this Is ridiculous and unrelated but eventually give in to my demands.
I say forget it, I guess we will never pass gluten reform. This definitely had nothing to do with the small fortune the gluten free industry stashed in my wallet without me knowing about it.
Let’s say there seems to be a problem with all the donuts being gluten free. I think we can all agree that not all of the donuts should be gluten free.
We sit at the negotiating table to pass a law that gluten free food needs extra sales tax to discourage its rampant spread.
I argue the minutia endlessly and demand rainbow sprinkles and gluten free donut holes with less than 0 gluten as well as hot dogs with no ketchup. You think this Is ridiculous and unrelated but eventually give in to my demands.
I say forget it, I guess we will never pass gluten reform. This definitely had nothing to do with the small fortune the gluten free industry stashed in my wallet without me knowing about it.
Let’s say there seems to be a problem with all the donuts being gluten free. I think we can all agree that not all of the donuts should be gluten free.
We sit at the negotiating table to pass a law that gluten free food needs extra sales tax to discourage its rampant spread.
I argue the minutia endlessly and demand rainbow sprinkles and gluten free donut holes with less than 0 gluten as well as hot dogs with no ketchup. You think this Is ridiculous and unrelated but eventually give in to my demands.
I say forget it, I guess we will never pass gluten reform. This definitely had nothing to do with the small fortune the gluten free industry stashed in my wallet without me knowing about it.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
I think the correct meaning has been mentioned a few different times, but I thought I might try to reiterate or simplify.
Someone is arguing in bad faith when they are willing to result to basically any tactic aside from outright lying to make their argument appear favorable or correct.
This can include:
The misrepresentation, omission, or misconstruing of fact.
*”Five people on that flight were wearing masks and they still got sick”, knowing full well an additional 15 who were not wearing masks also got sick.*
An attack of character that is completely unrelated to the argument.
“*What does this guy know about medicine, his favorite show is Scrubs!*”
Knowingly citing an unreliable, invalid, or biased source
*”Well, Alex Jones said.. “*
Or basically anything that is *deliberately* misleading in the interest of “proof”.
Latest Answers