On phone so brief.
Trust to me is about probability and an acceptance of the odds. As I see it, everyone has a hierarchy of desire and therefore will break trust if doing so gets them something higher I their hierarchy, not just if it is in their best interest or not.
I don't trust people to not break my trust, I trust that my judgement of the risks is sound and the acceptance of the position is my responsibility. I am not going to blame someone for breaking trust, I just didn't evaluate their hierarchy of desires well.
Trust is an investment into risk because their is a personal return in a trusting relationship but not all will realise the value and often, the costs outweigh the gain.
Well put. I like how your take on this puts the locus of control (and responsibility) on you. You need to watch who you trust if not for any other reason but your own sake. The question is, however, when and to what extent those who violate our trust deserve to be punished?
Posted using Partiko Android
The punishment depends on the "crime" doesn't it? To what extent does someone who exposes themselves to undue risk deserve to be punished? Violated trust means what, a secret told, a cheating partner, a lying politician? Perhaps before the punishment we should consider why we put our faith in them in the first place. It is a risk position with some kind of reward we value attached. If someone invests, they have to be prepared to lose their investment totally so would be the same for trust? Hard to blame a tiger for biting, it is in its nature and those who choose to trust are nudging the nature of an individual. Some are better judges of character than others which is why some will fall for a con while others do not. If you know it is a con and still take the risk, it is hard to blame the conartist for doing exactly as expected.
People want people to act like themselves even though when they themselves act poorly, they call for understanding and leniency in punishment. Do they extend the same to those who 'trespass against them' ?
Trust, responsibility and freedom of decisions bring up some interesting conflicts.
There are laws against fraud.
" If you know it is a con and still take the risk, it is hard to blame the conartist for doing exactly as expected."
If you know it's a con, then you're not taking a risk. But a mere suspicion does not free a con artist of culpability. All con jobs should be reported to the police.
There is also a law in Finland against spreading information about somebody's private life using the media or other means to be available to numerous people if spreading that information can be expected (or, by implication, does) cause damage or suffering to that person.
https://www.laki24.fi/riri-rikokset-yksityisyyden_rauhan_kunnian_loukkaaminen-yksityiselamaa_loukkaava_tiedon_levittaminen/
Interesting point of view, not holding others accountable for their betrayals. I certainly don't think that is how most people see it. Your whole assessment of trust seems very Vulcan to me. Mr Spock, is that you?