If the truster believes that both she and the trustee are actively invested in some common enterprise (e.g., raising a family, making a revolution, founding a nation), then trust can be based upon the following:

1. The value that the trustee places upon the mutual enterprise in which both truster and trustee are involved, which they could not further through their mutual cooperation without a prevailing condition of trust

2. The value that the trustee places upon the truster herself, as someone who is working with him toward a common purpose, which motivates the trustee to avoid the harm that would come to the truster if her trust were to be violated by the trustee

3. The value that the truster places upon the trustee as someone who is working with her toward a common purpose, which motivates the truster to support the trustee by engaging in helpful behavior toward him that would not be possible without trust

In support of the above analysis, I would note that in general there is greater trust among people when they live in a stable and sustainable society. Such a society is an example of the "mutual enterprise" referred to in the bullets above. When people are "invested" in such a society, they tend to trust one another.

Conversely, when there is a breakdown of social order, people tend to disinvest, and conditions of trust generally deteriorate. What remains is trust between smaller groups, such as families, that have more localized cooperative relationships that can sometimes be preserved during conditions of general social decay, although, as we know, preserving families and friendships also becomes more difficult during such general social trauma.

Even in conditions of general decay, some visionary individuals will be able to perceive a common interest with their peers based upon the continuing *potential* for forging cooperative human relationships, even if very little immediate benefit accrues to them in the present from such (hypothetical) cooperation.

Some individuals may also be able to see the benefit that accrues to them through the increased being (existence) that derives from their behaving in a consistent manner (i.e., in a manner that exhibits integrity). From a pragmatic standpoint, if one can identify individuals who are willing to act "on principle" because they value their own integrity, then one might trust them even in the absence of an ongoing, current cooperative engagement that aligns their fate with one's own. One might even trust them if there were little actual *potential* for forming such a cooperative arrangement.

To summarize, then, trust can be based upon three general things:

1. The existence of an active cooperative process that makes people appreciate the contributions of others to the general society

2. The ability of farsighted individuals to see and support the potential for such cooperation, even when it does not presently exist

3. The value that certain individuals place upon their own integrity, which causes them to align their promises with their behavior, despite the lack of any material reward to them for doing so.

One should attempt to inspire others to be more trustworthy, and should attempt to behave in a manner that inspires trust in others, because trust is essential to the cooperative processes upon which human society is based. Being trusting, however, is not in itself a virtue. If one trusts unenlightened people who are not invested in a collective, cooperative process, one jeopardizes not only one's self, but also all of the benefit that one might bring to society, and society itself. Trust is one aspect of forging cooperative relationships, and so, like all useful activities, must be pursued in a discriminating manner.

The Stanford article correctly raises the issue of "caring," but fails to provide an underlying basis for such "care" through an appreciation of the unique contributions that can be made to a shared cooperative process by the person or group for which one "cares," as I have described above.

The concepts of "goodwill" and "decency" discussed in the article are similarly correct in general, but also are vague and imprecise, because they fail to establish a basis, or even a clear definition, for such "goodwill" and "decency," such as the basis that I have outlined herein.

The Stanford Encyclopedia article also distinguishes between reliability and trustworthiness by pointing out that someone whose behavior is predictable due to outside constraints may nonetheless be untrustworthy if they are not motivated by an appreciation of the true value of others as independent agents. The example given is the sexist male employer who views women as means to his own ends, rather than as ends in themselves, but abstains from manipulating women for his own gratification because of a fear of personal consequences. This employer is seen as reliable, but not trustworthy - an evaluation that is consistent with the description of trustworthiness that I have given above. The employer responds to external threats and rewards rather than acting from integrity, and so becomes mere flotsam on a sea of circumstance, which, according to my view, causes that employer to have less being than he would have if he were acting from principle. Thus, the employer acts against his own interests by undermining his own being through his lack of integrity. As Kant said, the only truly good thing is a good will, and so personal integrity is its own reward, and the person motivated by such integrity cannot be manipulated by circumstance, and so is *intrinsically* worthy of our trust. That is the kind of person who stands in opposition, even when there are rewards to be had for sending Jews to concentration camps, or for dropping bombs on the heads of defenseless Palestinians.

While such integrity is beyond doubt the most reliable and foundational basis for trustworthiness, the less strong forms that are based upon respect for cooperative processes involving both the truster and the trustee are not to be written off as mere "reliability" flowing from pragmatic concerns. A cooperative social process is the basis for *developing* the stronger forms of individual integrity, since the integrity that it exemplifies at the level of society will be reproduced holographically within the individuals of that society, albeit to a greater or lesser degreee, depending upon the individual and her experience. And so, such cooperative social behavior should be seen as an aspect of a developing plexus of social relations, which result in a generally increased incidence of individual integrity and trustworthiness. This is not to be dismissed as narrow self-interest, even though there is an aspect of self-interest that is more specific, and less pure, than is the case for trustworthiness that flows solely from a desire to increase one's own integrity.

I believe that trust is a feeling/ factor/ state of being that is a very important element in all areas of life. To be truthful involves behaving in a way that is consistent with one's stated objectives/ intentions. Feeling trust in someone/ something promotes a sense of well-being, confidence, and safety.

In personal relationships (whether a friendship, romantic relationship, familial relationship, or the like), trust is the "glue" that holds the relationship together. Without it, a relationship can feel unsupported, uneasy, or even "shaky"/ questionable. For example, in a friendship, one wants to feel confident that he/ she can share certain information with his/ her friend, and trust that his/ her friend will not "spill the beans", as it were, to a third party if the former made it clear that he/ she did not want said information to be shared "freely" with others. In a romantic relationship, fidelity is one major "marker" of trust: Both parties would like to know that neither partner will "stray" onto "other pastures"/ be unfaithful -- especially if monogamy is mutually desired/ agreed upon by both parties. This aspect of trust also clearly relates to communication (and, specifically, HONEST communication): Honest discussion/ communication inspires/ feeds a sense of trust -- which, in turn, promotes confidence, as well as a sense of safety in being vulnerable/ open with another person, etc.

In work/ business relationships, trust is also key: Without it, suspicions can grow, morale can "sink", and (as a result) productivity -- as well as positive, effective, interpersonal relations between colleagues/ co-workers, etc. -- can decline and suffer.

Unfortunately, sometimes a person trusts another, only to find that the latter was not worthy of this trust (due to betrayal, lies, infidelity, "back-stabbing", etc.). In this case, it is important to realize that the nontruthful individual's actions/ behavior reflect on him/ her. The "truster" will most likely feel betrayed -- and possibly even foolish for having trusted the other person. However, I believe that he "betrayer" may behave in such a manner out of fear or insecurity. He/ she may subscribe to the belief/ attitude: "I'll get him/ her before he/ she gets me." Many, if not most (or all) people, have probably experienced this at least at one point in their lives. Even when/ if this seeming "setback" arises, it is important to keep in mind that it is not really about "you", but more about another's "issue/s"...

In conclusion, I believe that trust is an essential part of (an emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually healthy) life -- and it is truly a blessing to be able to feel comfortable/ confident enough in a friendship, relationship, etc. to be able to trust another.