Trust, in the sense of what many people seem to mean by the word, is never rational, and thus it can never be morally good, much less obligatory, whether directed towards other people or something else. This is because there can be nothing that is true which contradicts logical necessity, and since it can only be the case that nothing short of logical necessity (not intuition, not scientific observation, not hearsay, not literature, not group perception, not emotional preference) can prove anything, trust could not be logically and thus morally valid. Morality, if it exists, after all, would have to be consistent with reason. This is why, among other things, a moral system on which all killing is immoral that also entails the permissibility of self-defense is impossible.
Things besides reason only prove that an experience is being experienced. This, too, is only true because it is logically necessary that a thing is what it is and that one's mental states are directly known with absolute certainty, so if one perceives something, it does not follow that what is perceived is real beyond the purely mental experience itself. In their folly, non-rationalists will make assumptions based upon mere experience and passively or actively stoop to trust, such as trusting that someone loves you and would never seek to harm you. Expecting to be safe with someone on the basis of there being no evidence for them being unsafe and positive evidence to the contrary, for instance, is not the same as believing that another person really will not deceive, use, or hurt you maliciously.
In this definition, it could never possibly be rational or good or praiseworthy to trust. This is not commitment to something on probabilistic evidential grounds in the absence of knowing if an unverifiable logical possibility is true, but the making of assumptions, faith in something unknowable for beings bound to human limitations. It does not matter what the object of trust is. Since trust itself is the problem, it does not matter if it is in God (the Bible says plenty that is consistent with this even if misunderstood, such as what is explored here [1]), a human government, the scientific method, a hypothetical afterlife, friends, or spouses; for beings with human limitations, there is only rationalistic awareness of what can and cannot be known by a person light of logical necessity and the delusion that anything beyond this can be known despite the lack of absolute logical certainty or, sometimes, the lack of any fallible evidence at all.
While many memories with a person can provide evidence that one can rationally expect (without assuming) a certain outcome with a cherished friend or spouse, for example, there is no more basis for trusting them than there is for a total stranger. It is not about the relationship to the person or to how comfortable one feels. The very nature of trust is that it is always irrational if belief in an unproven/unprovable thing is what is meant. If you actually see into their minds and know with absolute certainty that this perception is not an illusion, you would not need to or be able to trust them. The same is true of other matters. Whether God loves me, whether the perceived laws of physics will remain constant, whether a primary historical source is accurate, or whether it is immoral to, say, murder someone can only be believed by someone with my epistemological limitations on faith, on assumptions.
It is not irrational to recognize these things are all logically possible and that some of them are even probable, but there is absolutely no logical necessity and therefore nothing more than illusory certainty that these things are true (it is not illusory that there is objectively evidence in favor of them, and that they might still be false). You do not have to trust that you exist, for to wonder if you exist or to reject this, you would have to already exist as a consciousness. More foundationally than this, you do not have to trust that there is such a thing as truth, for if this was not so, it would be true that there is no truth, and thus it would still be the case that there is truth (this self-necessity and self-verification is something all logical axioms share). Anything which logically follows from the likes of these is also absolutely certain. Anything else can only be trusted, not rationally believed.
No comments:
Post a Comment