New System, Anyone?

I don’t know about you guys, but learning about how Marx saw capitalism really resonated with me and even disturbed me because of how accurate it seems to be. No one actually likes going to work 5 days a week even if that person, like Dr. J., LOVES what he/she actually does. It is not the action itself that necessarily makes one dissatisfied, but the very fact that the action is one’s living, one’s source of income. And this really got me thinking about alternatives—about HOW the human population could possibly come together and decide on a more fulfilling, enjoyable, and still sustainable system for living in general. I personally believe that such an alternative is completely possible, but I think that the systematic world in which we find ourselves today is the main hurdle in finding that alternative. Since infants, we are socialized into these kind of lives where adults MUST earn money and MUST go to work. The hardest part is imagining if the world were a blank slate: how COULD people get what they actually need to survive then, and how COULD people find a higher sense of fulfillment in everyday activities? How should one go about trying to imagine a completely new system of “economics” outside of capitalism?

While many, if not most people, probably reject the importance of forming such an imaginary society outside of our cultural and social influences, I would argue that this is in fact the most important thing to do if people really want change. If people only knew of such a system, they could then view it in relation to the economic system as we know it and better identify HOW to change it. This would take huge education reform, since any huge transition like this would mean that everyone would need to be informed about it and get on board. Not saying this kind of thing could actually happen, and not saying that everyone should want such change, but I think its interesting to think about what such a change would need and what it would mean for the planet in times to come. Anyone interested in big change? Anyone interested in emerging from his/her limited perspective to see if there’s a better system out there in the land of imagination?

Professional Ballerinas Experience Irreversible Effects of Alienated Labor

We established that through Marx’s theory of alienated labor that because of capitalist logic we are alienated from multiple things. The one that I will be focusing on is the alienation from ourselves. Through “alienation from ourselves”, Marx means that we are alienated from our true essence because we are the farthest from who we truly are when we work. In class, Dr. J put it like this: “When humans are free in leisure, we revert to animal functions, while when humans partake in human functions (work) we revert to acting like animals.” As working humans, we are not only physically exhausted but also mentally exhausted, and we are never truly ourselves.

When we learned that part of Marx’s alienated labor theory, I was wondering about the scene of professional ballerinas. Professional ballet dancers face many physical and psychological disorders because of their eating disorders. For those of you who have seen the movie, “The Black Swan”- that is the type of lifestyle I am thinking of. Most professional ballerinas face a lot of anorexia and bulimia related disorders. Many of the ballet dancers want to get a place as a principal ballerina in the company they are in, like in “Black Swan.” This dream literally leads them to insanity.

In an article analyzing the reality behind the movie, “The Black Swan,” here is a part of the analysis by Carlin Flora:

“But classical dance in particular seems to harbor more pain than gain. One recent study found that high-level ballet training is associated with "late onset of menarche, menstrual disorders, lower weight and height development, and abnormal feeding disorders." And as for eating disorders, another study found that it's not just the pressure to be thin per se that makes ballerinas susceptible, it's the interaction between that pressure and their personalities, which tend toward perfectionism and neuroticism--hallmarks of anorexia.”
From: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201012/black-swan-art-and-madness

These professional ballerinas do this as their career. Marx would claim that the ballet dancers are forced to be like this and deal with the mental and physical strain of their job because of the capitalist logic. Thus, the dancers are not themselves when they are at work.

Capitalist logic’s alienation from ourselves is dangerous factor. Thus, I do not understand how these professional ballerinas can ever be themselves if the mental and physically exhaustion is a permanent state that carries over even after work hours.

Do you think that professional ballerinas can ever truly be themselves if the mental and physical exhaustion that they experience as a result of alienated labor carries over into their “work-free” time?

The Transitive Property of Debt

I wake up in comfortable bed, because my convenient alarm goes off.  Then I go shower in warm water and get dressed in fashionable clothes.  I’ll then check my facebook, text my friends, or maybe play some video games before class starts.  After class I’ll go eat a filling and tasty lunch.

This is just half of my day, but a Marxist might say that in that half day I have done nothing but distract myself from the injustices that I’m constantly being put under.  During all of this time I am paying dearly to receive my college experience and to have all my material possessions.  When I realize this I have to ask myself, “Why can’t I teach myself what I’m learning now from books and why do I need a degree to get a job?” 

College takes up so much time and money, but that is the direct result of supply and demand, the determining factors of the free market economy.  Different firms demand workers who are skilled and the worker force tries to supply that.  The firms and their leaders are the bourgeoisie, while people like myself who have nothing but the skills I have acquired and the sweat of my brow are the proletariat.  We get our degrees for the firms and their “private property” while sacrificing all that our families and we have to pay for the education.  An education that we then use to attain a salary to pay back those debts that the firms through the transitive property have put on us.  The pressure our society puts on us to become educated comes from the firms so that they can benefit from us while we suffer.

However, for now I can distract myself until I graduate and have to work endless hours to pay off the debt I have incurred from college and so much more.  That I can pay off with the salary that is only possibly compensating me fairly for the work that I give up to the firm.

Response to Communist worries

Following our session on Thursday, I've noticed a certain amount of replies revolving around fear of loss of technology. Students express concern over humanities laziness revealing itself. These are not unfounded concerns, and have certainly been evident in our society for a while.

My family has been a part of the medical field for a long time. My mother worked in a cancer center, my grandmother for the OR, and my grandfather in the ER. All have individually expressed concerns and fears for communist or even socialist ideals.

My mother once told me "No one would ever want to become a doctor. Why go to school for 10 years of hell, just so you can get the same reward as your neighbor who works on cars?"

My Grandmother explained to me that there was a possibility that invention would subside or cease. Again, if no reward existed, why do it?

However, I do believe that their arguments are based in a fear of communism - created by the Red Scare. They rely on money as the sole motivation for work, and disregard the contributions that theoretically would occur in a naturally arising communist society.

Basically - people do this for more than money. Does no one remember the stories of lawyers and nurses who took food as payment in the Great Depression? Veterinarians and Car Technicians who exchanged services in return for meager payments? Does no one remember children who wanted to become doctors and astronauts before they even fully realized what money is?

Yes, these are all idealistic principles - but they are only termed "idealistic" due to jargon created in a capitalist society. Would they still be idealistic outside of this society? Further more, doesn't the term "idealist" point to some sort of truth in the matter?

Though this is enough to convince me to not totally disregard communism, I understand firmer arguments must be made. For those that require it - look towards popular news. Reporters and journalists reveal hidden truths in medical science. It's more economically beneficial for the pharmaceutical companies to provide relief for diseases rather than cures for it. Why sell a cure for $100 dollars when you can sell monthly pills for $20? The benefits are seen within half a year.

Conspiracy theories exist revolving around these ideas, some more crazy than others. However, there is some truth in the matter. Economically - it is more beneficial to the companies, the doctors, the insurance providers. The only one who suffers is the person who's already sick anyways. In a capitalist society, where so much focus is on money, what's the benefit for providing a cure? Why in the world would someone work so hard to discover something that would make them less money than if they kept their mouth shut?

Unless, of course, you're willing to say that there's more to motivation that just money...

A Marxist Dystopia

I know this is an early blog post. Ok ok it's reaaally early. Like almost a week early. I just I wanted to make sure that I got this in before we left for break (otherwise, I’d never turn one in)

I can’t stop thinking about our discussion of Marx last week. I have 2 major problems with Marx’s work. The first is about an assumption he makes. The second relates to his argument justifying his utopian state.

First, I should say up front that I think, in general, Marx’s argument is a solid critique of capitalism. He certainly exposes the inherent problems of capitalism as an economic model. For instance, he is right about dramatic economic disparity. That is definitely a major problem. However, that doesn’t necessitate a revolution and the creation of a Communist state.

First, Marx seems to ignore the basic, fundamental aspects of human nature. Namely, he ignores the notion of economic incentive and intellectual property. If each person works according to their ability and receives according to their need then why would we work harder than we have to?

As for the According to Marx, a Communist society has full employment and no abject poverty. We cannot lose our jobs, we cannot lose our homes, we cannot starve, and (most importantly) we cannot receive extra rewards for our exceptional work. What’s the use then?

To the workers of the world: Why work harder than the bare minimum if there is no system of incentives (or disincentives)

For the entrepreneurs: Why invent medical devices? Why develop efficient means for transmitting information (email) or transportation (automobiles). In a Marxist “utopia”, society stagnates.

Secondly, I take issue with part of Marx’s argument. Marx would certainly respond to the criticism above by suggesting that I have been conditioned to think in terms of a capitalist society (one that requires private property, distribution of goods, etc.). Since I have been conditioned by that economic model, I am having difficulty conceptualizing the Communist state and “how people would act in that state.”

There are two big problems with type of argument.

(1) It is not a response to the argument against Capitalism. This diverts attention away from the real critique and ignores the issues raised. “You’re just conditioned to think in terms of a Capitalist society” is non-responsive to the central argument against Communism. That’s a problem. Not very compelling.

(2) By Marx’s own argument, human civilization has progressed through cycles of economic models, from primitive, to slave, to feudal, to Capitalism (and, eventually Communism). Since that’s the case, it seems that literally everyone has been conditioned to Capitalism. Since we participate in the capitalist society and work for wages, our labor is alienated and we view goods/services from that perspective. Thus, it follows that we are all conditioned. Despite this, Marx expects the Proletariat to rise from this, somehow see the light and recognize the contradiction in Capitalist logic. In other words, he expects the proletariat to inexplicably overcome their Capitalist conditioning. How do they realistically achieve this? I have no idea.

Marx is the only one who can understand his vision for a Communist state….

(I say that hyperbolically)

Conflicts with Marx

It’s interesting how the majority of Karl Marx’s theories are a mixture of many other philosopher’s beliefs. It seems to be an advantageous way of developing a theory though because you can take only the parts of their ideas that appeal to you and leave the rest. Of course though, even when creating a philosophy this way, there are going to be debates and disagreements, but it’s also interesting how widespread Marx’s critiques are. Looking at it from a political perspective, there are disagreements on the left and the right side of the political spectrum.

When Karl Marx wrote his book, “Communist Manifesto” he states that all men are born free but that society has got to such a state that the majority of people are in chains. Marx thought that working men and women should create the conditions for their own existence, because everything of value in society results from human labor. He also says that Income tax should be graded to income, in that the more an individual earns, the more they should be paid and vise versa, the less you earn the less you get paid. I can see how some people would be for this, while others against; it all comes down to politics. But then he argues for the abolition of property and ownership of land and I don’t see which side would be for this. It seems like no matter who you are you are going to want to be able to own something of your own. Do you agree? It seems that Marx’s beliefs are giving the working class hope of a better life. In that the workers would have an intellectual who was on their side and who was fighting their cause. But if you are apart of the working class are you really going to want to have to say that you have worked hard yet own nothing? Personally, I don’t see which side of the political spectrum would fight for that.

I would say that another main criticism of Marx was that he undervalued non-economic forces. He seems that place such a great deal and emphasis of his beliefs in an “economic shell,” that he neglects the concern of non-economic issues. I think critiques of Marx would say that he failed to take into account patterns of culture and a country’s traditions. Is Karl Marx’s theory not all about the economy?

Another Blog Post

In this post I want to examine Marx's phrase to sum up a communist society—"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."  Most of our time spent with Marx has examined his critiques and criticisms of capitalism rather than his ideas of what system would be better than capitalism.  But this "from each … to each" sentence gives us a sense of what Marx envisioned.  However, I have some objections to it.

First of all, I am troubled by Marx's mention of needs.  What seems glaringly absent is any discussion of who should determine one's needs.  Ideally, I think, the individual (who knows his own needs better than anyone else) would do whatever possible, within reason, to meet his needs.  A capitalist system, augmented by varying degrees of government intervention, seems capable of doing a reasonably good job of allowing citizens to both determine and meet their own needs (examples like poor access to health care in the US, I would argue, is a case for better government policy, but does nothing to challenge basic capitalist ideas like the appropriateness private property).  Marx's statement, however, seems to contain the rather insidious notion that other people will determine the individual's needs.  I can think of at least a couple problems with this.  First, it is inefficient—an individual is much more efficient in responding to his own needs than any other number of people could be in figuring out what this person needs.  Second, the potential for incorrectly determining a person's needs seems great when it is not the individual himself making that determination.  Of course, the individual would be inclined to overestimate his needs, but errors seem likely to be far more numerous and harmful when other people are determining needs.

I also have a problem with "from each according to his abilities."  It seems to me that citizens living in a society governed by this principle would have a somewhat weak incentive to work.  They have already been promised "to each according to his needs," and their needs will not go away if they are lazy workers.  Although the idea of everyone contributing as much as they are able has appeal, it just does not seem realistic to expect that humans would give according their abilities if they lacked incentives for working.

Value of Humanity

Sorry for double blogging, But I thought this was interesting and I wanted to share it with you all.

This is not a new story, it happened sometime last year I think.

It is a court case: Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, whose decision was to declare money "free speech."

Here is the link to a

Wiki Page for background information

Time Magazine Article

Putting all the political drawbacks that come from this, namely infinite monetary resources for those with enough support and means, creating unfair advantages for some, let us look at what this decision says about Human values in regards to Marx theory.

Think about Freedom of Speech, the first amendment in our Bill of Rights meant to protect citizens (though this is not specified in the constitution, thus the ruling) and how this amendment is applied to "money."

Again, looking forward to your comments.

Social Injustices

In sitting down to try and write this blog, I could not stop thinking about what Dr. J said in class about the evaluations of injustices. She made her comment just in passing as an introduction to Marx's theory, but it stuck with me. The comment was in reference to the fact that we, when of talking of injustices, we rarely look at the economic situations of individuals. The most popular maker for injustice conversation is race, ESPECIALLY here in Memphis. It is not until recently, in the past three years really (market crash of 2008) that the conversation began to significantly change. More people and more people (lay people that is) are now beginning to understand some of the connections between these injustices - educational, racial, environmental, and now economical (the most prevalent ones) - connections that people in the social work field have been alluding to for a very long time.

Capitalism, as Marx would argue, is the reason in delay of this awareness. Now understanding a bit more of what capitalism consist of, I am inclined to believe him. This then sullies my views of American's most prized concepts such as "The Pursuit of Happiness," "America, The Land of the Free," or"America, the land of opportunity." I am interested in how you guys now view these American values. Has your understanding of them changed?

Looking forward to your response.

"[Communism] is a Humanism"

In class yesterday, we talked about how Marx investigated the event of alienated labor. To sum up his points, in a system of capitalism, labor is disconnected from nature, human beings are objectified in producing the products of labor, humans lose that free conscious activity which defines humanity, thereby alienating them from their labor, and labor sustains the concept of private property. Now...I mudt say that I agree with Marx's argument. Of course it would be easy to disagree, being that we are all, currently, alienated from our labors and thus serve as members of the ill-protected proletariat. Yet, when Dr. J mentioned in class that things like Unions are put into place BY the bourgeosie in order to, basically, give the proletariat a false sense of protection, it made me think about Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism. Let's think about it. In a strange way, they are amking the same essential points. Sartre dealt with the idea of Bad Faith. He says that all humans are freedoms, and thus have the ability to transcend most facts of their situation. Furthermore, in order to be Actually Existing Individuals, we must be aware of this transcendence instead of living our lives in Bad Faith. Only when we become aware can we be classified as Actually Existing beings. Marx is saying something similar here. The proletariat are essentially not freedoms because they are being objectified through the products of their labor, thus alienating them from their labor. Furthermore, they are living in Bad Faith, convincing themselves that they are the owners of their property when they are actually not. Only when there is a deletion of the concept of private property, and the proletariat gain a sort of class consciousness (or unified knowledge of their ability to transcend their situations), will they be able to live in a more fair, communist society. In both cases, people must acknowledge their own personal freedom in order to live "the good life." So, in this case, like existentialism, doesn't that kind of make communism a humanism

Private Property is necessary

In the last two classes, we had the opportunity to learn a lot about Marx‘ critique of capitalism and his theory of alienated labor. Also, we already discussed a lot of our objections and misunderstandings in class, but I still have some issues, which I would like to share with you.

The main thought I would like to share with you deals with Marx‘ theories about private property. According to Marx, this basic idea of capitalism is the source of all evil and at the same time the reason for the downfall of capitalism. I appreciate his critique in terms of what the idea of private property can cause in a bad way. But personally, I do believe that he forgets about very important merits of this idea. we tend to say that it is human nature to gather property, although it has not always been that way. But, humankind developed in a different way so that we now consider it as a part of human beings, to collect private property. So, how can this be wrong, if wrong means failure of humanity? I would even dare to say, humans need something what the can call their own, in order to feel secure about the fact that they can use it. Surely, Marx would say, if all your needs are satisfied, you don‘t need to worry about certain goods that might not be available for you. But I ask you guys, is every MacBook or iPhone the same? Do we not care in which Mercedes C-Class we sit, for they are all the same? I don‘t think so, because we built up special connections to our property. This connection is very important in order to take care of it. If we worked for it, or even if we got it as a present, and we consider this thing as our own, we make sure that it is not broken, clean and that it operates well. We can see the reverse effect in things that do not belong to us, such as public places and property like parks or playgrounds but also things that do belong to us in an indirect way, e.g. as property of a larger group, such as the chairs and tables in a classroom of a college, we pay for. All these things usually are not treated in the same way as they would be if they were private property. This is the first thing that comes to my mind, when I try to imagine a communist society as Marx wanted it to be. All the things I use would not belong to me. Surely, it is an interesting thought, but somehow it scares me. Probably, it is just because I am totally infected by the logic of capitalism and therefore not able to make proper judgments.

How would you feel if the computer, you are sitting on at the moment, would not belong to you. How would you treat it?

A BOSS IN DIRE NEED OF ETHICAL COUNSEL

We’ve been having a very interesting discussion about Sartre and his existentialist theory. Dr. J explained in class that Existentialism does not give us a moral code for conduct, or as Thomas aptly states in his post, it does not give “a clear rubric for gauging moral actions.” Instead, Sartre stresses so much on freedom and responsibility. He believes that having a radical sense of responsibility yields better moral judgments.

While reflecting on our class discussions, I came across a rather unusual, yet funny story, which I would like to put up for ethical analysis.

In the story below, a boss explains why he fired his secretary:

Last week was my 40th birthday and I really didn't feel like waking up that morning. I managed to pull myself together and go downstairs for breakfast, hoping my wife would be pleasant and say, "Happy Birthday!", and possibly have a small present for me. As it turned out, she barely said good morning, let alone "Happy Birthday." I thought... Well, that's marriage for you, but the kids... They will remember.
My kids came trampling down the stairs to breakfast, ate their breakfast, and didn't say a word to me. So when I made it out of the house and started for work, I felt pretty dumpy and despondent.
As I walked into my office, my secretary Joanne said, "Good Morning Boss, and by the way Happy Birthday!" It felt a bit better knowing that at least someone remembered. I worked in a zombie like fashion until about one o'clock, when Joanne knocked on my door and said, "You know, it's such a beautiful day outside, and it's your Birthday, why don't we go out for lunch, just you and me." I said, "Thanks, Joanne, that's the best thing I've heard all day. Let's go!"
We went to lunch but not where we'd normally go. Instead she took me to a quiet bistro with a private table. We had a couple of mixed drinks and I enjoyed the meal tremendously. On the way back to the office, Joanne said, "You know, it's such a beautiful day... We don't have to go right back to the office, do we?" I replied with "I suppose not. What do you have in mind?" She said, "Let's go to my apartment, it's just around the corner."
After arriving at her apartment, Joanne turned to me and said, "Boss if you don't mind, I'm going to step into the bedroom for just a moment. I'll be right back." "Ok." I nervously replied. She went into the bedroom and, after a couple of minutes, she came out carrying a huge birthday cake...followed by my wife, my kids, and dozens of my friends, and co-workers, all singing "Happy Birthday".
And I just sat there...on the couch...Naked.

url: http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyIFiredMySecretary/bmznb/post.htm

This story probably gave you a laugh, or maybe not. However, I believe it’s a great story for ethical analysis.

Based on Sartre’s ethical views, how can we describe the concept of freedom and responsibility in this story? How can the man explain his actions? Was the secretary responsible for the man’s actions (not directly or causally, but in a “domino-effect-sort-of-way)?” How can the man exercise his freedom in this situation? Was it morally right for the boss to fire his secretary after this event? In this embarassing moment, will the boss attempt to answer the question "What kind of existence is this?" If so, how?

These are just a few questions to consider, feel free to analyze the story using any questions you have. Looking forward to reading your responses.

Are what and who synonymous?

I've been thinking about Sartre's Bad Faith and trying to figure out if it can even be avoided. Can humans be genuine all the time? We constantly seek approval from others, as the social beings we are, and we aim to make ourselves look good in the eyes of others to achieve this. Thus, we are sort of acting all the time. I can't say I always act as I feel, because not everyone needs to know when I've had a terrible day, and I even act differently around certain people. I do not act the same around my grandparents as I do with my friends, just as I do not act the same in class as I do at a party. I understand that this is obviously acting, but I am not really acting like something other than myself. Those roles I aim to fulfill are versions of myself. I consider it to be hiding, as in only showing a part of myself that seems appropriate for the situation. I am capable of acting a certain way all the time in every situation, but different situations evoke different sides of my personality. For instance, in an interview I sit up straighter and speak more eloquently, but in a way that represents me. I am acting like an impressive and confident interviewee, but I am still myself. I don't really believe Bad Faith should be considered a complete change in person, but rather showing a certain side of yourself. This brings me to the question of whether "what" we are and who we are differ from each other. "What" implies an object, while "who" implies a being with a distinct personality. However, aren't we all "whats" AND "whos"? What am I? A student, a girl, and a daughter. Who am I? I am still all of those things, and I can't quite understand how one believes those titles can be absolutely defining. We are all very complex individuals whether we try to be or not, and we should all understand that there is much more under the surface to a person that we can even begin to fathom, therefore it would be dumb to assume that a person is just a teacher, or just a construction worker, or just anything.

By being completely genuine we are trying to not hide anything about ourselves by reacting to situations without editing our thoughts. But, because it is in our nature to want to be surrounded by others, wouldn't we have to actively try to not try? Then by trying to be genuine are we still being genuine? To me, it doesn't seem truly genuine if we are having to try. What are some thoughts on this? Is authenticity attainable?

A "Bad Faith" Industry?

Is bad faith considered bad faith only when one is not aware of lying to one’s self or is it still bad faith even when one is conscious of this lie?

To better understand this question, let’s discuss the film industry. We all watch movies, in which the actors play various characters. Obviously, the actor is not actually that character but the actor is being that character ( by playing that character).

I think that acting is a profession that requires a lot of talent because a career in acting necessitates one to “lie” on screen about who they are, by playing the character that they should play. Also, actors may be so versatile that they will play varying roles throughout their careers. Either way, they have to be lying to themselves in order to truly convince us that they are the character that they are playing.

Take Julia Roberts for example. When we hear her name, there are various characters that come to mind that she has played. The character that each person thinks of might be different but usually we think of the character she played before we think of her as “ just herself”.

All actors/ actresses seem to be identified and defined through the roles that they have played in their career. In that, they are involved in a profession that demands them to give into bad faith all the time. They are aware that they are being in the mode of not being it ( not that they sit down and literally say those words to themselves before every scene) but I mean that they do know that the role that they are about to play is only a role and not who they are as people outside of the movie.

Technically, bad faith is telling a lie to oneself so in that way the film industry demands “lies to be told” in order to play a role well. However, the actors and actresses are aware of this but we identify them by their role so the role they play ends up being part of their essence. The fact that they know that it is just a role in a movie, does that still qualify as bad faith as we do identify them with the role? Thus, I am trying to ask whether the role they play, as it becomes a true identifier of the actors and actresses, is still bad faith even if they know that they are acting? If so, could the film industry be viewed as an industry of “bad faith”?

Is Bad Faith a bad thing?

While at first, in an existentialist mindset, bad faith seems like a bad thing. I can, on the other hand, see how in some of Sartre’s own examples how bad faith isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Bad faith, according to Sartre, is a lie one tells to oneself by denying either their facticity or transcendence in certain situations, absolving themselves from the situation and trying to blame it either all on facticity or ignore their facticity and transcend the entire situation. Two of the examples Sartre uses, the waiter in the café, and woman on a date, aren’t necessarily bad things, even though they are in bad faith, and this bad faith possibly improves the situation.

Regarding the situation of the waiter: yes, he is technically in bad faith by playing at the role of being the stereotype of a waiter, which would be impossible for him to be. Is this a bad thing though? I think it is much better for the entire restaurant and customers there to have waiters like this than the alternative (if any of you have been to Young Avenue Deli, you know what I’m talking about). If the waiter chooses to act like the essence of a waiter, is bad faith a bad thing? It makes him do his job better, makes the customer happier, and contributes to the overall atmosphere and the restaurant and dining experience. It seems to me in this case that the waiter acting in bad faith, on the bigger level, is a good thing.

The example of the woman on the date too seems to be a better situation than the alternative as well. Even if she knows exactly what the man wants, she might not necessarily know what her decision is regarding the situation and how she is going to react to him. By acting in bad faith and delaying her decision making process and conversing with the man, she provides herself an opportunity not necessarily to not make a decision, but to get to know the man better, and this could possibly influence her decision either way rather than making an immediate, rash decision. This also seems like an example of how bad faith isn’t necessarily a bad thing in certain situations.

While bad faith, in certain situations tries to absolve oneself from responsibility, it doesn’t seem to me that bad faith is always bad, but in fact is a good thing, even in some of Sartre’s own examples. Do you think bad faith is necessarily a negative thing, or does it have some positive aspects, situationally?