Abstract:Trust is difficult to define. Instead of doing so, I propose that the best way to understand the concept is through a genealogical account. I show how a root notion of trust arises out of some basic features of what it is for humans to live socially, in which we rely on others to act cooperatively. I explore how this concept acquires resonances of hope and threat, and how we analogically apply this in related but different contexts. The genealogical account explains both why the notion has such value for us an… Show more
“…As inherently social beings, human beings need to find ways to cooperate with others (Simpson 2012). In the city, people are living and collaborating with others who have different views, needs, beliefs and interests.…”
Section: Trust In the City As A Political Placementioning
This article focuses on the smart city as a political place. It analyses how both the technologies and the ideas smart cities are built on, oust trust and the rule of law as two important conditions for the city as a thriving political community. In particular, three challenges to the city as a political place are identified: desubjectivation, invisibility, and a neo-liberal value shift. In order to address these challenges, we introduce the term 'negotiation' as a new guiding principle to the use of smart technologies in cities. Through negotiation, we underline some necessary steps to resubjectify citizens and to put the acceptance of vulnerability and transparency at the centre of our thinking and evaluation of the smart city. This article concludes that the current focus on participation and citizen-centric smart city projects is not sufficient to build and contribute to a genuine political community and that a re-evaluation of active citizenship in the smart city context is therefore needed.
ARTICLE HISTORY
“…As inherently social beings, human beings need to find ways to cooperate with others (Simpson 2012). In the city, people are living and collaborating with others who have different views, needs, beliefs and interests.…”
Section: Trust In the City As A Political Placementioning
This article focuses on the smart city as a political place. It analyses how both the technologies and the ideas smart cities are built on, oust trust and the rule of law as two important conditions for the city as a thriving political community. In particular, three challenges to the city as a political place are identified: desubjectivation, invisibility, and a neo-liberal value shift. In order to address these challenges, we introduce the term 'negotiation' as a new guiding principle to the use of smart technologies in cities. Through negotiation, we underline some necessary steps to resubjectify citizens and to put the acceptance of vulnerability and transparency at the centre of our thinking and evaluation of the smart city. This article concludes that the current focus on participation and citizen-centric smart city projects is not sufficient to build and contribute to a genuine political community and that a re-evaluation of active citizenship in the smart city context is therefore needed.
ARTICLE HISTORY
“…Another example of an author proceeding in this way when taking a view of the field can be drawn from Simpson's recent work. Simpson (, p. 550) begins by outlining what he takes to be the dominant methodology within the philosophical literature on trust. I quote extensively to avoid the charge that I am cherry picking at all.…”
Section: Kinds Of Trustmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Simpson (, p. 551) does not in fact believe that trust is amenable to conceptual analysis. At the outset of Section 2 of the article, he states the following: Why should trust not be amenable to conceptual analysis?…”
Section: Kinds Of Trustmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…He has not looked to provide caveats, such that the project of providing a conceptual analysis of trust is to be understood as the project of providing a conceptual analysis of trust in people , and, at least so far as I can see, there is nothing in the framing that suggests that Simpson would intend the project to be shaped in that way. He then goes on to note that: “[t]hree major ways of thinking about trust have emerged in the literature” (Simpson, , p. 551). The three major ways he identifies are those positions taken by Baier, Jones and Holton.…”
My claim in this article is that, contra what I take to be the orthodoxy in the wider literature, we do trust inanimate objects – per the example in the title, there are cases where people really do trust a ladder (to hold their weight, for instance), and, perhaps most importantly, that this poses a challenge to that orthodoxy. My argument consists of four parts. In Section 2 I introduce an alleged distinction between trust as mere reliance and trust as a rich, morally loaded notion. In the course of doing so, I briefly sketch some models of trust. This will help us to get a handle on how some of the mainstream models of trust preclude or ignore the trusting of inanimate objects. In Section 3 I introduce cases designed to show that we have reason to think that we do trust inanimate objects. In Section 4 I consider an objection, and in Section 5 I discuss some consequences of this finding, before concluding in Section 6.
“…In making this proposal, we intend to follow several other recent authors who have proposed that there are frequently multiple versions of various virtues. See(Baehr 2011), (Zagaebskwe 2010), and(Simpson 2012).…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
