Difference between revisions of "Bad faith"
(RW philosophy) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
In a discussion, [[bad faith]] refers to the idea of misrepresenting the reasons for one's position, aka [[intellectual dishonesty]]. Arguments may be said to be "in bad faith". | In a discussion, [[bad faith]] refers to the idea of misrepresenting the reasons for one's position, aka [[intellectual dishonesty]]. Arguments may be said to be "in bad faith". | ||
| − | ==Rhetorical Manipulation== | + | ===Rhetorical Manipulation=== |
Any argument that uses [[rhetorical manipulation]] to make its point may be ''suspected'' of being in bad faith, although it is ''not'' bad faith to use such manipulation to drive home a point which the arguer believes to be [[true]]. It may be necessary to look at the ''pattern'' of arguments and note whether they are internally consistent in order to make a reasonably good determination of whether an argument is sincere ([[good faith]]) or not. | Any argument that uses [[rhetorical manipulation]] to make its point may be ''suspected'' of being in bad faith, although it is ''not'' bad faith to use such manipulation to drive home a point which the arguer believes to be [[true]]. It may be necessary to look at the ''pattern'' of arguments and note whether they are internally consistent in order to make a reasonably good determination of whether an argument is sincere ([[good faith]]) or not. | ||
Some rhetorical manipulations, however, work against good [[epistemic]] practice (i.e. they are [[antiepistemic]]), and therefore may be viewed as "bad faith" by default. | Some rhetorical manipulations, however, work against good [[epistemic]] practice (i.e. they are [[antiepistemic]]), and therefore may be viewed as "bad faith" by default. | ||
| + | ===Political Philosophy=== | ||
| + | [[Right wing]] philosophy holds that all negotiation is, or should be, over the question of strength – whoever is "strongest" ''should'' be the winner, regardless of who has their facts straight – and thus right-wing parties will tend to engage in [[carrot-and-stick negotiation]], [[soldier argument]]s, etc. | ||
==Related== | ==Related== | ||
* [[Issuepedia:Arguing/trust]] | * [[Issuepedia:Arguing/trust]] | ||
Revision as of 20:37, 9 November 2019
About
In a discussion, bad faith refers to the idea of misrepresenting the reasons for one's position, aka intellectual dishonesty. Arguments may be said to be "in bad faith".
Rhetorical Manipulation
Any argument that uses rhetorical manipulation to make its point may be suspected of being in bad faith, although it is not bad faith to use such manipulation to drive home a point which the arguer believes to be true. It may be necessary to look at the pattern of arguments and note whether they are internally consistent in order to make a reasonably good determination of whether an argument is sincere (good faith) or not.
Some rhetorical manipulations, however, work against good epistemic practice (i.e. they are antiepistemic), and therefore may be viewed as "bad faith" by default.
Political Philosophy
Right wing philosophy holds that all negotiation is, or should be, over the question of strength – whoever is "strongest" should be the winner, regardless of who has their facts straight – and thus right-wing parties will tend to engage in carrot-and-stick negotiation, soldier arguments, etc.