Difference between revisions of "Bad faith"
(RW philosophy) |
(some reworking of definition) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
</hide> | </hide> | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| − | In a discussion, [[bad faith]] refers to the | + | In a discussion, [[bad faith]] refers to the practice of covert [[dishonesty]] (e.g. misrepresenting the reasons for one's position or concealing important information, aka [[intellectual dishonesty]]). Discussion participants who are found to have done this may be said to be participating "in bad faith", or described as "bad faith participants". |
===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. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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=== | ===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. | + | [[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 [[right wing/tactics|tend to engage]] in [[carrot-and-stick negotiation]], [[soldier argument]]s, etc. |
==Related== | ==Related== | ||
* [[Issuepedia:Arguing/trust]] | * [[Issuepedia:Arguing/trust]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:12, 3 August 2020
About
In a discussion, bad faith refers to the practice of covert dishonesty (e.g. misrepresenting the reasons for one's position or concealing important information, aka intellectual dishonesty). Discussion participants who are found to have done this may be said to be participating "in bad faith", or described as "bad faith participants".
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.