Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Distrust is not merely the negation of trust. — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Distrust is not merely the negation of trust.

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Distrust requires believing that a person is committed to acting in a certain way but will not follow through on that commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If distrust were simply the negation of trust, no additional positive belief about the person's failure to follow through would be required.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On a Humean dispositional account, mental states are individuated solely by their functional roles in producing behavior, not by their propositional content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distrust produces the functional complement of trust-behaviors (withdrawal, vigilance, non-reliance) without requiring any additional positive belief beyond the absence of trust.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, distrust is fully constituted by the negation of the disposition to rely, making the positive-belief requirement in Argument 1 an inflation of the account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Baier's own account of trust as 'reliance on another's goodwill' entails that its negation—non-reliance due to expected ill-will—exhausts what distrust adds over mere non-trust.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument conflates the causal explanation of why one distrusts with the constitutive content of distrust itself, committing a genetic fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the positive belief about non-follow-through is merely evidence triggering distrust rather than part of its structure, Argument 1 fails to show distrust is not the negation of trust.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Baier's own account of trust as 'reliance on another's goodwill' entails that it...Distrust produces the functional complement of trust-behaviors (withdrawal, vigi...Distrust requires believing that a person is committed to acting in a certain wa...If distrust were simply the negation of trust, no additional positive belief abo...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the positive belief about non-follow-through is merely evidence triggering di...On a Humean dispositional account, mental states are individuated solely by thei...The supporting argument conflates the causal explanation of why one distrusts wi...Therefore, distrust is fully constituted by the negation of the disposition to r...

    Similar

    Faith is (plausibly) a form of trust.87%Consciousness falls outside the scope of negation.83%If distrust were simply the negation of trust, no additional positive ...82%Distrust requires something beyond the absence of trust and beyond mer...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trust
    View source passageHide passage
    In summary, among the relatively few philosophers who have written on distrust, there is settled agreement about some of its features but not about the nature of distrust in general. The agreed-upon features tell us something about when distrust is warranted (i.e., plausible). For distrust in someone to be plausible, one cannot also trust that person, and normally one will not be reliant on them either. Something else must be true as well, however. For example, one must believe that this person
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit