You don’t have to redefine bad faith to exclude (lying to protect yourself) to morally justify it. By definition, bad faith is intent to deceive, so lying would count even if it’s for your protection and morally justified.
People can seek truth in some spaces and not seek truth in other spaces. Not everyone has to seek truth, and those that do don’t have to do it all the time. And there can be “partial truth seeking” spaces, where the norms only partially optimize for the truth.
I have had good conversations where one or both parties says, “Ok, what you’re saying might be true, but I’m having a hard time considering it due to X. Can we discuss X?” That’s very different from saying something like “You should be more polite in order to get more people to listen to you”. It’s taking responsibility for having a hard time absorbing the information.
I had a very approximate reading and understanding how the concept of “bad faith” enters into the mix. In my mind I was thinking of a situation that if what I say mainly implies whether I get hit in the face in the next second what I let out of my mouth can’t be said to attest to the truth of any matter. Consent under duress is no consent and in a similar way testimony under duress would spoil it from being any claim of fact making it incapable of being a lie (yet I used term “lie” to refer to a statement that would on literal english level be a claim of fact which in a speech act sense it would not be). In a way when you give into a “appeal to stick” you are yielding, not affirming anything.
You don’t have to redefine bad faith to exclude (lying to protect yourself) to morally justify it. By definition, bad faith is intent to deceive, so lying would count even if it’s for your protection and morally justified.
People can seek truth in some spaces and not seek truth in other spaces. Not everyone has to seek truth, and those that do don’t have to do it all the time. And there can be “partial truth seeking” spaces, where the norms only partially optimize for the truth.
I have had good conversations where one or both parties says, “Ok, what you’re saying might be true, but I’m having a hard time considering it due to X. Can we discuss X?” That’s very different from saying something like “You should be more polite in order to get more people to listen to you”. It’s taking responsibility for having a hard time absorbing the information.
I had a very approximate reading and understanding how the concept of “bad faith” enters into the mix. In my mind I was thinking of a situation that if what I say mainly implies whether I get hit in the face in the next second what I let out of my mouth can’t be said to attest to the truth of any matter. Consent under duress is no consent and in a similar way testimony under duress would spoil it from being any claim of fact making it incapable of being a lie (yet I used term “lie” to refer to a statement that would on literal english level be a claim of fact which in a speech act sense it would not be). In a way when you give into a “appeal to stick” you are yielding, not affirming anything.