to trust or not to trust

[gib]

@Joker

Are you advocating moral elitism? There is inequality in that too…

If it can’t be applied to all people but instead only to a small minority of people you then have elitism.

Let’s just assume that a small amount of people exist in this moral system of yours…How long do you think it will be before a selected number of the group find convenience in exploiting others within their collective?

Inequality is forever inevitable largely because upon building the systemization construction of morality moralists themselves have overlooked what our nature is for our nature is indeed predatory or even a cannabilistic one.

My understanding of “elitism” is a group of people who think they are better than everyone else and therefore ought to have special priviledges over them.

I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. I don’t know how morality comes into this at all.

My claim is not that people ought to give a system of trust a chance, but simply that under some circumstances they can. God knows there’s enough people who would want to live in a trust system where everyone trusts and has mutual respect for one another, and I’d venture to say that there’s even enough out there who would do what it takes not to disrupt such a system through acts of betrayal. I’m just saying you could start such a system if you wanted, although you’d have to know the risks involved. Take it or leave it. To each his own.

@Joker

Let’s just assume that a small amount of people exist in this moral system of yours…How long do you think it will be before a selected number of the group find convenience in exploiting others within their collective?

I don’t know. I’ll admit the system wouldn’t be perfect. There are certainly some circumstances under which a select few might take advantage of the rest, but these circumstances fall outside the scope within which the system works best. I make an assumption when I think about how the system might work effectively. I assume that the mutual trust and respect each member has for each other is not worth compromising. That is, whatever benefits one individual might reap by betraying the others, it would not be worth the loss of trust he’d incur. Of course, even then it’s possible for someone to betray the system, but that would be an act of stupidity (which means there’s another assumption: that all members are smart and rational). So basically the system wouldn’t work with any arbitrary group of people and it wouldn’t work under all circumstances.

@Joker

@gib

The best example I can think of is my own marriage. When my wife and I first started dating, everything seemed perfect. We were so mushy and in a daze over each other that it made others physically ill. Then came the competitive phase - which is normal in most relationships. For quite a while we struggled with each other’s fight for dominance - who was going to wear the pants in the relationship - and this created an air of distrust and game playing that was difficult to break out of. What finally broke us out of that was my willingness to be the sacrificial lamb, to open myself to the possibility of being taken advantage of (vis-a-vis who does more house work, who gets the make the decisions, etc.). It took a while for her to see that I was doing this (and at times, I had to explicitly point it out), but my persistence in trying to establish a system of trust by not reciprocating the defensiveness and game-playing eventually paid off.

Are you proposing a form of stoicism?

I never thought of it that way, but I supposed you could say that… in a very crude sense.

@Joker

@gib

The problem is you’re taking a risk - that can’t ever be avoided - but it’s by no means a guaranteed failure. It can work.

It isn’t a guaranteed success either. Success and luck is random.

Some people have it while a large majority don’t have it and desire it greatly.

Moralists assume there is some grand scheme or pattern for success overlooking the randomness that is existence.

I wouldn’t say it’s all luck and randomness. I certainly think that in a hypothetical scenario in which one person reaches out to another and says “Hey, you can trust me. Can I trust you? We could rely on each other in that case, and that will make us stronger” and the other person agrees and acts upon it, the first person can be credited with initiating that system.