Typically
refer[s] to a situation characterized by the following aspects: One party
(trustor) is willing to rely on the actions of another party (trustee); the
situation is directed to the future. In addition, the trustor (voluntarily or
forcedly) abandons control over the actions performed by the trustee. As a
consequence, the trustor is uncertain about the outcome of the other's actions;
he can only develop and evaluate expectations. The uncertainty involves the
risk of failure or harm to the trustor if the trustee will not behave as
desired.1
If the past dictates the future, is it illogical to
conclude a persons previous actions will resurface in time? That being said,
how can one trust another not to commit the same treachery they’ve previously committed,
whether it was a direct or indirect attack against you or somebody else? If a man steals your car
simply for the thrill and later genuinely repents his transgressions, is it not
probable that he will steal a loaf of bread from someone else if he became
hungry decades later?
Trust is a double edged sword with the ability to
disembowel the trustor if he/she doesn’t use extreme caution. Here we must
quote Rene Descartes, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ All beings who are capable of
thinking lie, therefore, all those who think are liars. How is one supposed to
trust a liar when a liars tongue will deceive his/her own mind?
Suffice it to say there are various degrees of trust. One
is incapable of trusting 100% because there will always be doubt in some form or
fashion. You may be able to trust a person 100% in one situation, however, if
placed into another situation that trust becomes virtually non-existent. You
might trust a babysitter to care for your children while you’re at work but you
can’t trust one to care for the kids the way you do. Or, just because your son
is responsible, cautious, and safe, graduated high school with honors, its
reasonable to assume you wouldn’t trust him with your life savings of
$30,000,000. But, what about $10? Chances are you would. Why? Because of the
degree of risk associated with that trust. You know that if you trusted him
with the $10 and he somehow lost it it wouldn’t affect you as much as it would
losing the $30,000,000. The same test could be applied to your banker, mailman,
priest, husband, or wife. You may be able to trust them in certain aspects of
your life but you cannot trust them completely.
When we grant trust freely we’re ultimately assisting the
cultivation of our own pain and in the end we have the audacity to fault the
person who betrayed us. Why should we blame the one who betrayed us when we
were at fault for granting the trust to begin with.
Most of us are, or, would like to be, prudent spenders,
why are we so guarded in terms of finance when any act of betrayal can be our
demise. Trust, therefore, should be issued as needed and guarded closely never
to be given away liberally.
1 www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(social_sciences)
