h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Trust is dead.

To compensate, we have tried regulating the behavior of commerce, finance and nearly every aspect of life. Some on the religious right want to force married people to keep their vows and some on the secular left want to write enough laws that trust isn’t necessary because it is replaced by government control.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/3969

This might be one of the best commentaries on "what's wrong with the United States (and perhaps the rest of the so-called civilized world) today" that I've run across.

NBY

Trust is buried right next to Personal Responsibility. This is a society of victims. No one is responsible for their actions. Everyone is looking to sue someone else for any thing that happens to them. The most abhorrent behaviour is forgiven with merely an stay in a rehab clinic. Our leaders, when caught breaking the law or flaunting ethics simply STATE that they take full responsibility but never actually do.

When no one is responsible for their own actions, how could Trust survive?

"Trust cannot be imposed, it cannot be brought into existence by faith, it is by its very nature a product of free and open communication and human interaction."

The article does point out that getting to know the people surrounding you is a good starting point for determining whether or not they are trustworthy, and for them to draw the same sort of conclusion about you.

Something to be said for that. Actual human contact with actual humans is a place to begin. I think the fact that all of the employees of the sandwich shop around the corner from me greet me and my wife by name and that we respond in kind is a GOOD thing. That we know which of them is on a jail work-release program, and why, which one has an abusive husband, how each of the ones who were on duty during an armed robbery reacted, etc., etc. is an even better thing.

NBY

Totally agree. Just about everyone in my little "top of the hill" town knows me, knows my history, my weaknesses (idiotic longhaired men!) & strengths (honest, generous, socially aware)& i trust most folks & they trust me.

For all its faults (which were many) my upbringing, or maybe just innate stuff; means that i am totally clear about what is right & what is wrong. This doesn't mean to say that i don't ever do wrong; but i do so knowing i have done so. And that means you've punished yourself for starters, far more effective than any outsider could impose.

The trouble is, once anyone starts saying this sort of stuff, they get labelled a Born Again Christian type; which is totally not the case; it's just that i do believe the fundamental principles of the 10 Commandments are actually fairly vital for a decent society. however, i resent the word "Commandments"!!!!

As for trusting RL people; i go with my instincts; usually i am right, if i get a "radar warning" the person usually backs off, by mutual agreement...maybe i've just been lucky, or maybe i am seen as scary?

zdt

Hello NBY! Nice to see you here again. For me, as a paranoid person, trust if of *extreme* importance! I actually tend to trust people too easily, but then when people disappoint me, betray the trust I placed in them, I swing to the opposite extreme of distrust. I 'amplify' this into distrust of just about everybody. This is not a nice way to live.

There *has* to be a solid base of trust for any community or society to be able to exist and prosper!

That is an *excellent* piece! I totally agree that the basis for trust must come with increased and improved interaction and communication with people ... directly, in our day-to-day doings, in our own local communities. I agree that our current isolation from each other is doing amazing harm. I have been aware from getting the internet, that it is nice to be able to communicate with people like this ... but there *is* something missing, if you do not have the person you're communicating with right in front of you. I'm not going to give up the internet ... but I *am* going to try and improve my direct person-to-person relating as well.

I also try from my side to be as trustworthy as possible. I try and take extreme care about what I say, not to talk bullsh*t. I guess I sometimes fail. But I keep trying! Basic honesty, and being responsible for the truth of one's statements, is I think one very important base for trust. This goes beyond merely not lying. It also means not saying anything unless you are sure yourself ... unless you have *made sure* as well as you could ... that what you say is true, fair etc. It is a difficult thing to do.

Terri, I agree that something like the Ten Commandments would be good for society. I also agree that calling them 'commandments' is not right! I don't want to go into religion here, though. My own idea ... which I would *not* call a revelation from on high ... is that we need some kind of system of rights *and* responsibilities. A system not enforced by law, but just suggested and explained to people. Right now everybody wants rights, but not responsibilities. In my 'system' it would be the case that rights limit themselves. My rights are limited by your rights, et cetera. Also it would be pointed out how rights *demand* responsibilities. As a society, we can only protect people's rights if we all behave responsibly to ourselves and to others.

Another thing I've considered as possibly helping ensure trustworthiness, is if people in positions of great trust and responsibility were punished more heavily for breaking and betraying trust. The death penalty for corrupt politicians & businessmen. Only a thought!

Hello Willem! Long time no type.

To adress what pretty much everyone on this thread has been saying, I agree with the need for some sort of universally accepted moral code, knowing that geting universal acceptance of any one thing is pretty much impossible.

Seems to me that "these are the rules" can only come from three places: Government, religion or self. Depending on any one of them alone has proven, over and over, not to work.

All three can say "these are the rules and here are the consequences for not following them." Governmental consequences are very much "here and now" relate to loss of freedom or life. Religous consequences are a matter of faith and religous rules are unenforcable to the person who does not share the faith, with the exception of those scary countries where religous and governmental rule is vested in the same body. Personal consequences are determined by the individual.

Relying solely on personal responsibility has been tried. Karl Marx called in "enlightened self interest." For all his intellect, Marx's reliance on the basic goodness of the masses, or those who would lead them, proved, in practice, to be misplaced and kind of naive.

I suppose that the best combination I can come up with is one where personal responsibility in predominant, backed by rule of law to protect the physical (not emotional or spiritual) well being of others, and rule of clergy, with it's promise of good or bad things after death and no practical ability to do anything here and now, for those who need the added incentive.

So that's how it will be when I run the universe and make the rules. Until then, I guess we can only be responsible for our own behavior.

NBY

Hey NBY it's nice to be talking again to you, too!

You make some great points there. I want to point out some positive 'angles.

There *is* at the moment near-universal acceptance for 'human rights'. People, especially powerful people, who 'transgress' against human rights, are seen as swine. It can be pointed out that 'human rights' in practice actually depend on many things, one of which is 'trust'.

There is also near-universal acceptance of science and its conclusions.

One other source for 'moral rules' can be philosophy. To me philosophy underlies everything else. 'Joe Public' is rather ignorant of philosophy, and yet *some kind of philosophy* underlies even 'his' thoughts and actions.

It is funny that while there is near-universal acceptance of science and human rights, there is near-universal ignorance of the philosophies that underly both science and human rights.

If I had the power and the time I would labour in my life to make people understand philosophy and the various philosophical ideas that underly the various 'things' that make up the 'system'. And criticise those things that are philosophically unsound. Because there are massive inconsistencies and contradictions in the philosophical groundwork of the ideas of our societies and of our times ... I sincerely believe that a *better* (not necessarily *perfect* because I think perfection can never be attained ... but constantly approached) philosophical foundation for our society, would help in various ways.

It's been very interesting to me here in South Africa ... philosophers are returning to some of the basic ideas of the old Greek philosophers. Even to the extent of looking again at the supposedly archaic and outdated concept of 'virtue'.

You've presented some interesting ideas here, Willem.

I think that, in looking at the big picture, you're right on target regarding public opinion on human rights, the violation thereof and on belief in science.

That's one hand.

The other hand is the fairly large groups that don't seem to have a problem rejecting the concept of science or human rights for people who are not like themselves. The ongoing genocide in Darfur is not the work of one or two individuals and the so-called "religious right" in the United States is gaining power and popularity.

Seems to me that, as conditions that would enable trust deterioriate, a lot of folks are looking outside of themselves for answers. "God's will" or collective "punishment for sins" is a whole lot easier than "be the change you wish to see."

A basic understanding of past and current philosophies couldn't hurt, for those who are able to understand. For those who aren't, most religions actually offer a decent moral code.

NBY - only six months until retirement!

Hello again NBY! You make very good points, too.

I want to say something - I don't 'believe' in science and its conclusions in an absolute way. And I also don't think that other people should do so. I don't think science ever gives us *absolute* truth ... but we can have a fair degree of confidence in the method and its results ... *if* we always take into consideration that there's shortcomings in our metods and that our 'knowledge' keeps changing. We learn more and sometimes we have to 'unlearn' what we thought we knew.

To me this 'uncertainty' about science is one of the best things about it! You specifically do NOT believe in a single, absolute 'truth'. There *might* exist such a Truth, but it will be eternally beyond the ability of our scientific methods to discover in its perfect fullness and totality. But we might be able to approach the 'Truth', closer and closer as time goes by and our methods improve.

See, there's a bit of philosophy! The importance of uncertainty. Being able to proudly say, 'I don't know, I'm not sure'.

Generally this is a problem that I have with religions: they claim too much certainty. If *any* religion could admit uncertainty, it immediately becomes, to me, much more attractive. There certainly can exist religious systems that incorporate this admission of uncertainty.

In the times we live in, for sure I can see how many people live with such insecurity that they *want* to have perfectly certain answers. They put too much trust in people who claim to provide such answers. And I don't mean religious leaders only!

In general, though ... there is much of value in the value systems of religions, especially the less extreme and fundamentalist 'varieties'. The 'moral code' of the Golden Rule ... which I would state as, 'behave to others with the same respect, responsibility and consideration with which you want others to behave to you' ... is a fairly good guideline and is, in some form or other, found in the main religions of the world.

Hey NBY and everyone else - Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to you, as well!

I think that we're in pretty much complete agreement here, Willem. Popular opinion aside, "I don't know" is a valid answer to a lot of the bigger, philosophical questions.

I personally distrust anyone who claims to have "the answer."

Unless, of course, that answer is "42."

NBY