I am using a legal concept of bad faith, however the Wikipedia page on the concept of bad faith is quite extensive if you are interested. Here is a non-religious definition:
] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith#cite_note-duhaime1-58> A Canadian labor arbitrator wrote, in one case, that bad faith is related to rationality in reasoning, as it is used in other fields, but is ill-defined in the law.[58] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith#cite_note-duhaime1-58> The concept of bad faith is likely not capable of precise calibration and certainly has not been defined in the same way by all adjudicators. At its core, bad faith implies malice or *ill will*. A decision made in bad faith is *grounded, not on a rational connection between the circumstances and the outcome, but on antipathy toward the individual for non-rational reasons*...The absence of a rational basis for the decision implies that factors other than those relevant were considered. In that sense, a decision in bad faith is also arbitrary. These comments are not intended to put to rest the debate over the definition of bad faith. Rather, it is to point out that bad faith, which has its core in malice and ill will, at least touches, if not wholly embraces, the related concepts of *unreasonableness*, discrimination and arbitrariness. What was called "Canada's best judicial definition of 'bad faith'" by *Duhaime's Legal Dictionary*is similarly more consistent with use in other fields discussed above.[59] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith#cite_note-59> Good faith and its opposite, bad faith, imports a *subjective state of mind*, the former *motivated by* honesty of purpose and the latter by *ill-will*. Harry On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, 2:52 PM [email protected] < [email protected] wrote: > Harry -- > > > > You indicate the tendency is to assume bad faith on my part of those who > do not see it my way. > > > > I am not sure what you mean by “bad faith.” If you mean disagreement with > one of many religious doctrines, I do not assume that. > > > > I DO conclude that there is a tendency for many (based on observations) to > DIREGARD the tenants of the various doctrines. > > > > IMHO tolerance of the various doctrines and/or dogma (my conclusion > regarding the nature of some faith doctrines) is warranted in open, > civilized society, even though I do not agree with all their tenants. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > > > *From: *H LV <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Saturday, March 2, 2019 11:49 AM > *To: *[email protected] > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:a bit of honesty in a complicated world > > > > The tendency to assume bad faith on the part of those who don't see it > your way (i.e. the right way) is also human nature. This tendency can be as > damaging to the greater good as those who are accused of doing "it" wrong > way. Of course, it is possible that those doing it the wrong way are really > acting in bad faith, but one should be able to back up that assertion with > unambiguous evidence that doesn't rely on a feeling of indignation for its > interpretation. > > > > Harry > > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:22 AM Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Yes, risk aversion so they all react 'safe'. CYA and political correctness > comes with the territory, big organizations not allowed to fail > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 17:59 H LV <[email protected]> wrote: > > In contrast with Big Tobacco of the 1970s, I think the big car companies > and big oil have investors who suffer from risk aversion rather than naked > selfishness. > > > > Harry > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:45 PM Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > He did not mention explicitly : "investors from the petroleum industry" > since that is a given ... but the implication is that he gets constant > negative feedback from some of his investors, at the level of Board of > Directors, NOT to pursue electric vehicles... Imagine that... > > > > I expect this is what led to the destruction of the GM EV1, and to the > long delay in introducing electric cars. However, when the market for > electric cars began to heat up, and when Tesla began to outsell all other > luxury cars combined, this motivation evaporated. GM, Ford and the others > feared they would face extinction if they did not develop electric cars. > They would not let influential Board Members or politicians prevent them. > > > > For the same reason, GM, Ford and the others rushed to build hybrid cars > after the Prius become popular. Hybrid cars greatly reduced gasoline > consumption, so if there were Board Members with connections to big oil, I > suppose they would have opposed them. I don't know if there were such > Members but if there were, GM ignored them. > > > > Again, for the same reason, they are now pouring billions into > self-driving automobiles. There may be industries and groups that oppose > that oppose that technology. I wouldn't know. But no auto executive would > listen to opponents, because after Toyota or GM starts selling self-driving > cars, the others better have one within a few years or they will be doomed. > > > > >
