Well, from my perspective, you have several issues to iron out. The first has to do with why you would be concerned with what someone of that era thought about anything. But I'll let you work that one out on your own.
The second concern is that of the very concept of existentialism. It is very common for a government, for example, to become established, gain authority, and then decide that the people who formed it are of no real value except to serve it. The government declares its own freedom from those who formed it such as to choose its own purpose and goals. Such an act creates an existential paradigm and mindset within which the populous often falls into alignment and sees nothing beyond.
A homosapian does that exact same thing as he becomes educated by 18th century philosophers. He was raised by forces within that he never fully understands but at some point decides that his body and inner emotional urges are there merely to serve his new found authority over them. From that point, he is free to choose his future.. up to a point. But was he ever really free? Did he actually have a responsibility (a response-ability) to do something specific rather than merely choose an arbitrary purpose in life? Did the government really have that "right"?
From my perspective (with substantial support), I say "no". Neither a government of a society, nor a government (cognitive mind) of a single body ever really had the right to arbitrarily choose the purpose of the body/soul or anything within.
So from that stand point, Sartre has already displayed a lack of maturity from which he would have a hard time defending anything concerning morality.
But now to the third issue, "is bad faith really bad?"
Well, epistemologically and semantically speaking, obviously it has to be. "Bad" anything is a "bad" something. But of course, what is probably intended is to ask whether there is such a thing as "bad faith".
Again, this gets back to that choice of purpose. One cannot defend that something is either good or bad if one has no standard from which to measure. Once a goal or purpose is identified, one can then deduce that anything leading toward that goal is good and anything leading away is bad.
But now if you are going to be an existentialist and proclaim that you decide arbitrarily what is or isn't the purpose, then it can only be in contest with oneself that one can proclaim that anything they did was "bad". But can that be done? I think it can.
Let's say for example, that you choose that your purpose in life is to become ultimately healthy. And then with that in mind, you study many reports and decide that in order to meet that standard, you must eat a specific diet everyday. Of course, health doesn't come instantly, thus one must keep on the diet over time, having faith that they are on the right track. But what happens when they discover that they had been misled, for whatever reason, and the specific diet they had chosen wasn't making them healthier, but rather less healthy?
Faith had to be held for sake of the effort. But as it turned out, it was a faith in the wrong diet. Doesn't that fit the definition of a "bad faith"? I don't know Sartre personally, but I suspect that he would understand that argument enough to defend his concerns about bad faith. Although I imagine he would apply it more toward religious or political faith, moral faith, or personal beliefs concerning one's abilities. But the concepts would be the same. A person faithfully abides by what they currently think is probably true, but that in fact, might not actually be true, hence a "bad faith".
Sometimes even the most immature people still have potentially good arguments for their delusions.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony ElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works
", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.
Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto:
Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.The Real God
≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is