I disagree. As I understand the situation here, the person in question genuinely believes in this incorrect meaning. If they use it in a way that they believe is correct, this is not intentional deception. I think that just follows directly from what “intentional” means, its a property of the agent in question, not of their social context. On the other hand, people in the group who are teaching the wrong meaning could definitely be acting in bad faith, and within a legal context if the group is some type of legal entity (like a corporation) that entity could be acting in bad faith.
As I mentioned on another comment, not all bad conduct in discourse is bad faith. I think part of the why this confusion exists is due to the temptation to apply a label for bad conduct to other conduct that doesn’t strictly meet the definition but is in some way analagous. I generally think it is good to resist this urge. It is good to maintain distinction and clarity about what is being claimed, and doing so doesn’t mean we have to endorse bad conduct that doesn’t fall under “bad faith”.
As I understand the situation here, the person in question genuinely believes in this incorrect meaning. If they use it in a way that they believe is correct, this is not intentional deception.
You might not buy this particular example, but even if you think these particular people are sincere, that doesn’t mean that everyone who is lying is lying on purpose.
We often aren’t aware of what we’re doing, or why we’re doing it. People who lie aren’t aiming at misrepresenting their beliefs. They’re aiming at convincing someone of something. That this thing happens to be untrue isn’t the point—the kid claiming to not have taken the cookie from the cookie jar wouldn’t say anything different in the case where he actually didn’t.
There are many different ways that one could respond to being called out for this dishonesty
We could notice that we did a little “accidental on purpose”, and admit it: “Oops, sorry. I got caught up being defensive, and was aiming to be seen as innocent without caring about whether it was true. I aimed to convey a thing which I knew to be untrue which is a lie, and now that I notice that I did, I apologize. I don’t intend to let myself lie. Yes, I took the cookie from the cookie jar”.
We could keep short sightedly aiming at “getting out of trouble”, instead of caring at all about honesty: “I’m not lying! You have no proof! That could be anyone who looks just like me in the video!”
We could aim a little less short sightedly, notice the dishonesty, and think to ourselves “Yes, this is a lie. I think I can get away with it though”
We could aim to be dishonest, and report that we took the cookie if we didn’t, and that we didn’t if we did.
It’s only really the last one that is technically “intentionally misrepresenting”, and no one does that. The middle pair is intentionally doing a thing which includes dishonesty—which wouldn’t be there if they were aiming to maintain honesty—but the dishonesty isn’t the intent.
So what do you mean by “intentionally misrepresent one’s beliefs”? Are you letting all the accidental liars off the hook, so long as they’ll happily self correct once they notice their dishonesty? So long as they make sure to not notice their dishonesty? Or persuasively lie that they don’t?
It’s easy enough to avoid common knowledge of “I was fully aware that I was lying, and choosing to lie anyway” that this is nearly unenforceable. The central case of lying involves someone who looks like they might actually believe it, or not know they don’t believe it, because the incentives are for them to obscure the fact that they know. And the harm comes from the dishonesty itself, even if the person is genuinely trying to be honest.
We need to be able to distinguish between meta good faith and object level bad faith, such that we can say things like “I think you were accidentally bad faithing there, what do you think?”. Because if we can’t do that, then we can’t credit people for their meta-honesty, can’t punish people for their object level dishonesty as long as they keep doubling and tripling down, and generally set up terrible incentive structures.
“Accidentally on purpose” is the best possibility for what could be behind a lie, and until we can even represent that possibility we have no hope of orienting to the problem well.
You seem to have a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of “lying’ (or I do—might be a cultural thing). My understanding of lying is “saying something you know to be untrue”. Which sort of is intentionally misrepresenting what they believe? Whether they do it instrumentally or terminally is besides the point?
“Accidentally bad faithing” doesn’t make sense (hence the “I like people who obey the law (here meaning never committing a social faux pas)” example). If you misrepresent the truth—or even outright lie—but but didn’t intend to, then that’s not bad faith. Bad faith is when you intentionally set out to deceive someone. The intentions here are important. It’s like the difference between manslaughter and cold blooded planned murder. Both result in a corpse, but the later set out to intentionally kill someone.
The Christian talking about the witness of the Holy Spirit is not setting out to deceive you. They truly believe in their position. It might not be true, it might leave you with a totally different understanding than they’re thinking of, they might even be aware that they’re using “witness” in a somewhat unusual manner (“open your heart to Jesus”...) etc., but it’s not explicitly intended to deceive you, and so is not in bad faith.
“Cynical” seems to often be used as an incorrect synonym for what bad faith is pointing at, e.g. “cynically mention the witness of the Holy Spirit as evidence”.
You seem to have a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of “lying’ (or I do—might be a cultural thing). My understanding of lying is “saying something you know to be untrue”.
Your definition of lying is exactly my own. The difference is that I take “knowing to be untrue” as enough, without requiring that they also narrate “This is a lie, teehee!” as they do it. People rarely do that when saying things they know to be untrue. Because that behavior is conditioned against for obvious reasons.
Far more often, people will say thing they know to be true without admitting to themselves that they know it to be true. They’ll even narrate to themselves the opposite. Because that way, people will conflate “Hasn’t admitted to themselves, against their own interests, that they know that what they’re saying is untrue” with “Doesn’t know that what they’re saying is untrue”, and run defense for them.
You have to distinguish between beliefs and metabeliefs, lies and meta lies, intent and meta intent, or else you end up running defense for people who intentionally choose to say things they know to be untrue, because they would rather mislead in self serving ways than speak the truth, and they know you won’t hold them accountable.
Wait, I’m confused. What is the difference between not admitting to themselves and not knowing? Do you mean something like subconsciously knowing? Or maybe cognitive dissonance?
I disagree. As I understand the situation here, the person in question genuinely believes in this incorrect meaning. If they use it in a way that they believe is correct, this is not intentional deception. I think that just follows directly from what “intentional” means, its a property of the agent in question, not of their social context. On the other hand, people in the group who are teaching the wrong meaning could definitely be acting in bad faith, and within a legal context if the group is some type of legal entity (like a corporation) that entity could be acting in bad faith.
As I mentioned on another comment, not all bad conduct in discourse is bad faith. I think part of the why this confusion exists is due to the temptation to apply a label for bad conduct to other conduct that doesn’t strictly meet the definition but is in some way analagous. I generally think it is good to resist this urge. It is good to maintain distinction and clarity about what is being claimed, and doing so doesn’t mean we have to endorse bad conduct that doesn’t fall under “bad faith”.
You might not buy this particular example, but even if you think these particular people are sincere, that doesn’t mean that everyone who is lying is lying on purpose.
We often aren’t aware of what we’re doing, or why we’re doing it. People who lie aren’t aiming at misrepresenting their beliefs. They’re aiming at convincing someone of something. That this thing happens to be untrue isn’t the point—the kid claiming to not have taken the cookie from the cookie jar wouldn’t say anything different in the case where he actually didn’t.
There are many different ways that one could respond to being called out for this dishonesty
We could notice that we did a little “accidental on purpose”, and admit it: “Oops, sorry. I got caught up being defensive, and was aiming to be seen as innocent without caring about whether it was true. I aimed to convey a thing which I knew to be untrue which is a lie, and now that I notice that I did, I apologize. I don’t intend to let myself lie. Yes, I took the cookie from the cookie jar”.
We could keep short sightedly aiming at “getting out of trouble”, instead of caring at all about honesty: “I’m not lying! You have no proof! That could be anyone who looks just like me in the video!”
We could aim a little less short sightedly, notice the dishonesty, and think to ourselves “Yes, this is a lie. I think I can get away with it though”
We could aim to be dishonest, and report that we took the cookie if we didn’t, and that we didn’t if we did.
It’s only really the last one that is technically “intentionally misrepresenting”, and no one does that. The middle pair is intentionally doing a thing which includes dishonesty—which wouldn’t be there if they were aiming to maintain honesty—but the dishonesty isn’t the intent.
So what do you mean by “intentionally misrepresent one’s beliefs”? Are you letting all the accidental liars off the hook, so long as they’ll happily self correct once they notice their dishonesty? So long as they make sure to not notice their dishonesty? Or persuasively lie that they don’t?
It’s easy enough to avoid common knowledge of “I was fully aware that I was lying, and choosing to lie anyway” that this is nearly unenforceable. The central case of lying involves someone who looks like they might actually believe it, or not know they don’t believe it, because the incentives are for them to obscure the fact that they know. And the harm comes from the dishonesty itself, even if the person is genuinely trying to be honest.
We need to be able to distinguish between meta good faith and object level bad faith, such that we can say things like “I think you were accidentally bad faithing there, what do you think?”. Because if we can’t do that, then we can’t credit people for their meta-honesty, can’t punish people for their object level dishonesty as long as they keep doubling and tripling down, and generally set up terrible incentive structures.
“Accidentally on purpose” is the best possibility for what could be behind a lie, and until we can even represent that possibility we have no hope of orienting to the problem well.
You seem to have a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of “lying’ (or I do—might be a cultural thing). My understanding of lying is “saying something you know to be untrue”. Which sort of is intentionally misrepresenting what they believe? Whether they do it instrumentally or terminally is besides the point?
“Accidentally bad faithing” doesn’t make sense (hence the “I like people who obey the law (here meaning never committing a social faux pas)” example). If you misrepresent the truth—or even outright lie—but but didn’t intend to, then that’s not bad faith. Bad faith is when you intentionally set out to deceive someone. The intentions here are important. It’s like the difference between manslaughter and cold blooded planned murder. Both result in a corpse, but the later set out to intentionally kill someone.
The Christian talking about the witness of the Holy Spirit is not setting out to deceive you. They truly believe in their position. It might not be true, it might leave you with a totally different understanding than they’re thinking of, they might even be aware that they’re using “witness” in a somewhat unusual manner (“open your heart to Jesus”...) etc., but it’s not explicitly intended to deceive you, and so is not in bad faith.
“Cynical” seems to often be used as an incorrect synonym for what bad faith is pointing at, e.g. “cynically mention the witness of the Holy Spirit as evidence”.
Your definition of lying is exactly my own. The difference is that I take “knowing to be untrue” as enough, without requiring that they also narrate “This is a lie, teehee!” as they do it. People rarely do that when saying things they know to be untrue. Because that behavior is conditioned against for obvious reasons.
Far more often, people will say thing they know to be true without admitting to themselves that they know it to be true. They’ll even narrate to themselves the opposite. Because that way, people will conflate “Hasn’t admitted to themselves, against their own interests, that they know that what they’re saying is untrue” with “Doesn’t know that what they’re saying is untrue”, and run defense for them.
You have to distinguish between beliefs and metabeliefs, lies and meta lies, intent and meta intent, or else you end up running defense for people who intentionally choose to say things they know to be untrue, because they would rather mislead in self serving ways than speak the truth, and they know you won’t hold them accountable.
Wait, I’m confused. What is the difference between not admitting to themselves and not knowing? Do you mean something like subconsciously knowing? Or maybe cognitive dissonance?