‘The aim is to have more trust. Well frankly, I think that's a stupid aim. It's not what I would aim at. I would aim to have more trust in the trustworthy but not in the untrustworthy.' (Onora O'Neill)
How can we come to trust correctly? Why is this so important?
Trust is defined as a ‘Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something’, and it is that firm belief that can often be well invested or misplaced[1]. As a concept, trust is inherent to a successful society since, without it, people would not be able to act on anything. As philosopher Sissela Bok argues, ‘whatever matters to human beings, trust is the atmosphere in which it thrives’[2]. To demonstrate this idea, say a person prizes a specific object above anything. As they cannot take it with them everywhere, they must invest trust that nothing will happen to it while they are away. If this did not ensue, the person would never be able to leave the house, or in any case would have to compromise their life to assure that the object remained with them at all times. Hence, this level of trust must occur for a society to prosper otherwise people would live ineffectively, having to always compromise their life. Similarly, trust can be equally destructive to a society if it is badly invested. An example of this is Nazi Germany. When Hitler was first voted to power, the German people trusted him to improve their lives and economy. Although the subject of whether the economy improved is debatable, Hitler undoubtedly caused trauma and destruction to the lives of many people and caused a world war, betraying the trust invested in him by his people to act in their interests. While this is an extreme example of misjudged trust, it illustrates the acute effect that misplaced trust can have on a society. As a result, it can be concluded that though trust is important to have, it should not necessarily be given constantly, but rather invested in intelligently.
This matter of intelligently invested faith begs the question of what conditions are required for trust. The first condition that we must have in order to trust is the ability to make ourselves vulnerable to others. Trusting, as an act, requires the person investing the risk of failure of the person they are trusting. The only method to prevent this would be by monitoring the person to assure that they do what is entrusted to them. Of course, this would mean that the act is not actually being entrusted to the person since one would not have a firm belief in the ability of the other. This therefore leads to the conclusion that the person entrusted must realistically be given power to be able to betray; meaning that vulnerability cannot be rejected. Secondly, for trust to occur, we must be open to the idea of it. This may seem elementary however some people, such as victims of infidelity, find it difficult to trust again. This is significant because trust cannot be forced; the person must first be willing to put aside their pre-formed suspicions to allow themselves to trust. Thirdly, to allow for trust, we must be relatively optimistic about the competence of others. This competence doesn’t necessarily need to be in everything, but in the aspect that is being entrusted. As Onora O’Neill[3] suggests, a teacher could be trusted to teach a class but not to drive a school minibus. In this case, trust depends on the subject being entrusted since a teacher could be entrusted easily to teach - as one would expect them to have competence in that area - but they may not be trusted to drive the minibus if they don’t have a license. Therefore, these three basic conditions must be met to allow a person to feel trust.
Furthermore, it could be argued that it is not trust that people should aim for, but trustworthiness. This is mostly due to the fact that for trust to be well-grounded, the person trusted must first be seen as trustworthy. According to O’Neill, a person can be seen as trustworthy if they have particular traits, such as honesty, reliability and the ability to inspire rational confidence that they can perform a task competently[4]. This idea suggests that in order to trust a person, one must deem them a trustworthy person. Although this might appear given, consider a case where the person who is entrusted is not trustworthy. Consider our current government: they are not particularly honest about their policies nor are they particularly reliable; for example cutting the NHS budget after pledging not to do so. Perhaps they’re not completely deceitful but by these criteria, they are definitely not trustworthy. In this scenario, the government has been entrusted by the public without being particularly trustworthy. This conveys the message that perhaps seeking trustworthiness is a better way to trust correctly since, by taking this precaution, there is a minimised risk of betrayal.
If therefore the aim of trust is to seek trustworthiness, it seems natural that one must exemplify it. When a person acts with honesty, competence and reliability, it encourages others to embody these traits, meaning that one should attract trustworthiness by being trustworthy. Moreover, this could work for the idea of therapeutic trust. Some philosophers believe that by giving a person the responsibility of trust, they are encouraged to become a more trustworthy person[5]. This could be effective because the person may not betray one’s trust due to a feeling of conscience or pride that they have been entrusted, when they may not have been a particularly trustworthy person to begin with. Of course, as philosopher Pamela Hieronymi argues, the problem with this idea could be that the hope for reform cannot provide reasons for us to trust in the first place[6]. If trusting is an act of confidence in the other person, it seems paradoxical for one who is trying to reform a person’s trustworthiness to also feel that they can be trusted. Therefore, it is difficult to reconcile this idea as a viable option to trust correctly.
However, another factor that must be considered when judging whether to trust someone, is their commitment. This is important because there are three main motives that can be relied on for a person to be committed. The first motive is goodwill; where a person can be trusted because they feel affectionate enough not to be betray one’s trust. An example of this could be a family member or close friend who acts out of genuine care. Although this could be a binding form of trust, it relies on the benevolence of others, which can often be unpredictable. Consequently, the second possible motive is of moral obligation to be trustworthy. This could be effective if the person entrusted is a morally conscious person however it can only be used in those cases, which limits it as a viable option for trusting correctly. Thirdly, the most reliable motive is conceivably that of self interest. While it may sound strange that self interest may be the most reliable, consider the idea that people always act out of self interest. Even in a situation of entrusting a secret to a friend, it could be argued that they can be trusted because they are motivated by their own interest to maintain the friendship. For this reason, it could be perceived that the best motive when choosing who to trust is self interest.
Perhaps more significant than individual trust, is the issue of trust in society; namely the intrinsic ideas about trust that people have for certain groups. This is the trust most people have that they can continue their everyday lives without a high risk of anything bad happening. Traditionally, there have always been some groups in society that are seen as more trustworthy than others. For example, a smartly dressed gentleman may be regarded with more trust if he asked to borrow someone’s phone for a call than a beggar on the street. This categorization is because people have expectations for both parties to conform to their stereotypes. Since a person cannot make well rounded judgements about everyone - as it wouldn’t be possible to know each person in depth - this is the way that they decide whom to trust. Of course, it could be that the beggar is far more trustworthy than the gentleman, but as it is impossible to make a balanced judgement about each individual, people must rely on stereotypes to invest their general trust. While this type of trust is crucial for a society to function, on occasion, this reliance can put people in vulnerable situations. This is because they are making a decision based on stereotype rather than observation which could lead to trust being invested in the wrong person, resulting in disastrous effects. Using the previous example, our gentleman could be a thief, and steal the phone when the beggar may have been perfectly honest and returned it; illustrating how blindly invested trust can go wrong. To avoid this, there are two possible methods that can be taken. The first is to regard everyone with suspicion; avoiding investing trust at all until the person has proven that they are trustworthy. This would be effective because there would be little chance of betrayal, however it would require a compromising amount of time and effort for single acts of trust, therefore it is not a practical option. The second, more practical, option would be to reserve judgement and weigh each situation with care. While this simple act can seem insignificant, it may be surprising how much it can prevent trusting the wrong people.
Correctly choosing whom to trust is very important in life because we are constantly encountering situations that require both general and individual trust. Without trust we would live compromised lives but equally, when investing trust in the wrong people, we are compromising our lives. For this reason, it is crucial to know how to trust correctly. Onora O’Neill says that we should aim to have ‘more trust in the trustworthy but not in the untrustworthy’, suggesting that we can come to trust correctly by choosing trustworthy people to invest our trust in[7]. While this is a valid answer, perhaps the focus for answering the question should instead be on assuring the people we choose can be trusted. Although the two may appear similar on the surface, they give very different answers. This is because for a person to be trusted, they do not necessarily have to be trustworthy. It may be true that it helps to discern, however, it is possible to trust somebody without believing them to be a trustworthy person. Take the example of motives for commitment. While a trustworthy person may have strong motives to commit, the same could be said for an untrustworthy one, and they can both be equally trusted with relative confidence. So, how should we trust correctly? We should seek a convincing motive above all, and then if it is necessary, we should strengthen our position by searching for traits of trustworthiness and exemplifying it ourselves.
So reserve judgement but invest trust with care because it is as easy to have faith in the wrong people as it is to overlook those who can be trusted.
Bibliography:
· Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Private and Public Life. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978
· Hieronymi, Pamela. Australasian Journal of Philosophy: “The Reasons of Trust”. 2008.
(http://philpapers.org/archive/HIETRO Oxford Dictionary.pdf)
· O’Neill, Onora. What We Don’t Understand About Trust. TED. Filmed 2013. (https://www.ted.com/talks/onora_o_neill_what_we_don_t_understand_about_trust?language=en)
· Oxford Dictionary
(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/trust)
· Stanford: Stanford University.
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/)
Elysia Wright
[1] Oxford Dictionary: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/trust)
[2] Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Private and Public Life, Pantheon Books, New York, 1978
[3] Onora O’Neill, What We Don’t Understand About Trust. (https://www.ted.com/talks/onora_o_neill_what_we_don_t_understand_about_trust?language=en)
[4] Onora O’Neill, What We Don’t Understand About Trust, filmed 2013. (https://www.ted.com/talks/onora_o_neill_what_we_don_t_understand_about_trust?language=en)
[5] Stanford University: (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/)
[6] Pamela Hieronymi, “The Reasons of Trust”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 no. 2, published June 2008. (http://philpapers.org/archive/HIETRO.pdf)
[7] Onora O’Neill, What We Don’t Understand About Trust, filmed 2013. (https://www.ted.com/talks/onora_o_neill_what_we_don_t_understand_about_trust?language=en)