Do actions based upon 'good faith' still exist?
The concept of bona fide, which is sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest in interactions, still exist in society and human interactions?
I know that it's no longer the times of the Roman Republic; but, seemingly bona fide interactions are hard to come by outside of the law and jurisprudence system(?)
I know that it's no longer the times of the Roman Republic; but, seemingly bona fide interactions are hard to come by outside of the law and jurisprudence system(?)
Comments (38)
I suspect most human interactions are like this.
What I also suspect, however, is that we have become addicted to catastrophe and stories of doom and zombie apocalypse and many believe that the state of humanity is rotten to the core and that meaning has been lost and the end is nigh.
Of course. They take place in every supermarket, at every pedestrian crossing, in every bank, school, hospital and home every hour of the day. Were it not so, society would unravel and cease to function.
I take that as a quip at the US. Having said that, I think you are right that some Americans are more fearful and paranoid than other nations. Yeah, just another stereotype; but, it rings true to me.
What do you think?
Yet, what about all this "hustle culture" stuff going on? I intended for this to be an individual post; but, sure I'm interested in your take...
It's not going on in my neighbourhood. People out here usually get 'round, sooner or later, to doing whatever they contracted to do, usually do it conscientiously and efficiently, once they get started, but then, like as not, forget to wait for payment. Our snow-ploughing guy never invoices us at the end of winter; we send him a few email reminders, then nothing happens until the first big snowfall, when he shows up and quotes a surprisingly low figure for last season. You can't get better faith than that.
I'm nut sure I put a whole lot of credence in these recently coined 'cultures'. I suspect they're an internet phenomenon, rather than a way of actual life. Or maybe it's a localized thing.
But, what about working for a corporation in the US. There doesn't seem to be much bona fide going on there or maybe I'm wrong about this?
Maybe if your looking for good faith, it's over at the United Kingdom, no?
Haven't done that for a long time. Had one positive and one really shitty experience in IT contract work. In the latter, a corporation - don't know what size - was ripping off a municipal government, but we got out unscathed. IBM Canada was mostly okay, faith-wise, if not in executive decisions; a couple of other US subsidiaries were more or less inefficient and top-heavy. We always got paid, but were not always happy.
Not only bona fide does no longer matter in society but also "Winner school" no longer exists.
I can't find online some definition about it but it's about bonton that was widely popular in the region around Austria, it's bonton that was practiced in Austrian city of Vienna in the past.
An example of this bonton is to say good day to person you meet on the street regardless if the person is known or not to you.
Another example is to get up from the chair and let the elderly person sit on the chair. (ex. on a bus or in hospital)
Similar bonton exists (ed) in British society and Russian society, those are examples of countries with special bonton rules like Winner shcool..
But today people (especially younger ones) walk near your like if you're monument rather than human.
They will take the last available chair in hospital or in a bus and won't offer you, an older person to sit down instead.
So yeah, there is no bona fide either or anything similar like Winner school, human society is becoming very cold and rude centered around money.
Yes, it seems that there may be differing types of corporate cultures out there. I wouldn't know how to comment on companies like Google and Apple which take ethics very seriously. Then again, I can only speak from experience and one of the most common saying that I hear US workers say is, "Fake it until you make it." Which leads me to believe that it doesn't always work out due to your circumstances or environment.
Again, it seems like America is the way it is because of competitiveness and with that its most cherished activity being capitalism. Would you agree with my assumptions here?
Yet to make money, there's a lot of shoulders to rub and smooth talking to do. Again, it seems like when you land in a highly competitive environment with lax rules, you tend to find a lot of hustling going on.
Well, they constitute quite a bit of society and human interactions and always have, before and after the time of the Roman Republic.
You have surely noticed how people are kind and polite when they need something from you, but very quickly change their attitude once you provide them with help.
Ofc. not always, mostly people who are not very close to you.
Think of it like of a cat asking for food, it will meow upon you and cuddle but once it's fed you're no longer important.
I have seen bad faith actions in U.S. corporate culture.
Some of it happened in the context of managers competing for resources. But they are limited if they burn those resources at the same time.
Then there are patterns of not compensating labor and production. The latter, though, has the effect of poisoning the water. Cats who do that either have to relocate or fold their operation into another one. NYC construction has a long institutional memory.
But Good Faith nowadays proves to be more difficult than knavery. I don't have any developed theory, but I would propose that the reason for this is an increase in the domain of law, it's scope as a pseudo morality, and the thousand-and-one ways with which it allows an authority to intervene our interactions. These positive, third-party interventions into our regular dealings has fostered a reliance on their presence as the moral arbiter. Less and less do we require a conscience because our disputes can be settled for us.
In short, we aren't free enough for Good Faith.
In my humble opinion it actually began formally with the Roman Republic with their laws establishing every new dominion of Rome as an ally in terms of laws bestowed upon them upon or becoming a dominion of Rome. The Romans knew what they were doing, as does Biden, who seems to be very much some kind of former member of The Club of Rome. :chin:
Interesting observation, please go on... Again, the Romans had something called quid pro quo, which was a virtuous desire based on good faith.
Nowadays people do a tit for tat and call it a day once the transaction is over. Too cold and remorseless.
Or the law?
Quoting NOS4A2
Well if its the law that gets into the way of good moral conduct, then at least it prevents as its primary goal, the reduction of corruption. I think that having the law prevent dictatorships or autocracies from forming is a good thing. Take for example with what happened fairly recently in Poland with the Law and Justice party, perverting the law towards their own favor, and the Civic Coalition resuming power after a long eight years of some nepotism. I believe Viktor Orban is next, in Hungary.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's not freedom. Rather apathy and the exploitation of the law itself.
I believe you are right about this, but, can you clarify the litigiousness of which societies?
Bona fide is the sine qua non of communication.
Therefore every response to your op confirms performatively that bona fide interactions are the rule, not the exception. This is necessarily the case as the lie is necessarily parasitic on truthful communication. At the point where one cannot ever trust the response, one stops asking even such paranoid meta questions as this one.
If what you're saying is really true, then why aren't more people talking about this? On my own terms, I'll just point out the polarization the world is currently experiencing and with that the hardening of ideology, what should one do about this lack of congeniality in the main stream media?
Just pointing this out; but, are you aware that the legal system will enforce the current presidential run in the US depending on what some random judge says about Trump the playboy? In 2014, when Hillary Clinton was running, she got snubbed the presidency by a mistake by Comey from the FBI a week before the election.
Quoting unenlightened
Well there is a saying that only the paranoid survive, which I see fully fleshed out about how we arrive at our decisions based on the current information we have. But, if you have to psychologize this response about my attitude towards communication, then I believe that by being paranoid we can, one can say, appreciate the truth and especially with it honesty and credibility, which good faith relies on.
Yeah, it exists in case someone is wondering. A good pointer to see what the shenanigans are about see; https://www.csis.org/analysis/ideological-security-national-security
Call it out, rebut, complain, argue, present evidence, demand truth and honesty. Look for the honest actors in the media.
Quoting Shawn
It is a false saying. Only the cooperative survive in a species such as human that is highly social and highly cooperative. We have to trust each other, even to interact as we are doing right now, otherwise our words would have no value or meaning. One has to start with trust and then be wary of deceit.
I go to the shop, I pay for my food with a card, and trust that the whole human system of bank and card readers and so on works fairly and that the food is fit to eat, and so on. I trust that the bus will tae me home in good order, and at the time on the timetable or thereabouts. One does not notice all the everyday interactions that one relies on to live, but notices the exceptions which are the scammers and cheats. Call them out, call them out, but don't lose your trust in humanity.
I am suggesting (without any data or research) tgat it seems the U.S. and other common law societies like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, are prone to litigate their disagreements in court, and are accordingly less inclined to settle for "hand shake" agreements/settlements.
Yes, well certain ideologies of the past have been promising absolute trust in the government by ensuring that the trains run on time. After such bad experiences, (not to be taken in a vacuum), such as Mussolini or Nazi Germany, how can one not be wary of what other people have to say.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes well, not so long ago we witnessed such a failure of trust, that only such experiences could make one skeptical if not paranoid, no?
That's not the point I am attempting to make. Let me clarify, with the sentiments of Thrasymachus, all the way back to Ancient Greece, which Socrates could not handle and Plato had no answer, then we are still witnessing his thoughts played out in the chain of history. People say we might find salvation in technology; but, just take a look at what the atomic bomb did to end the axis of evil, and even then it was utilized as a demonstration of strength or power against a foe that was on the verge of defeat.
So, I believe that throughout history people have every right to be paranoid or skeptical.
It is funny to hear the self-identified champion for Trump complain about the nefarious consequences of excessive litigation.
No, I meant it as a general, mildly hyperbolic, observation. I think News Limited's approach and the way the news cycle works has helped foster this addiction to catastrophe.
In this instance, unreservedly.
There is some very bad weather in the USA and more of it coming this way. Not just from the capitalist winner-loser mindset, but from the culture of confrontation.
Just a belated note on courtesy. I suspect there is a divide between big city behaviour and rural behaviour. As an old person in our smallish city beyond commuter range of a big one, I don't feel ignored or sidelined. Sure, the adolescents on the street are lost in their phones and oblivious to anyone outside their tribe, but young adults are invariably polite. At the hardware or feed store, someone always offers to carry my heavier purchases to to the car. They open doors, reach items off high shelves and even go around the other way without comment if two old women (not me!) block the isle chatting or deciding what they want.
(Besides, I like their colourful tattoos and funky hair and their optimism.)
The Olympics?
Quoting Shawn
Hah! You've done your homework!
There was, indeed, a fair and honest interaction in carrying out the ancient wars. Believe it or not, there were messengers who would rush to the enemy's camp to deliver the itinerary of the other army. The act of war was not played out using tricks and cunning. Instead, it's brute strength and perseverance. If your army had managed to reach the agreed upon venue, it was because your soldiers were fit and determined. Maybe you used some elephants to carry the goods. Maybe you carried enough food. Maybe you studied the terrain and avoided steep mountains in favor of long distance flats. Whatever it is, both camps never used the element of surprise to trap the enemy or catch them off-guard.
Yes, I'm not going to argue against that, except to note that in the derogatory sense, paranoia is a mental condition that entails some disconnection from reality - not a rights issue. Because we absolutely need to trust others every day to conduct our lives, and because we know that there are bad actors, trust goes along with distrust, and is never absolute, after infancy.
But I maintain that bona fide, as honesty and trust, is what makes any cooperation at all possible; without it, the individual is completely isolated and communication is impossible. even deceit becomes impossible because no one is listening, except for the physical deceits of feints and camouflage, etc.
And the solitary man does not survive.
During the covid fiasco I cant think of any law that prevented tyranny and despotism. Rather, through the dictate of those who thought they knew better, it was used to prevent people from the most innocent of social activities, like going to church and visiting loved ones. Such an event proves that even in the most liberal societies the law will be turned against the people should it suit the authorities.
At any rate, good faith (and manners in general) is a kind of law in itself. But it can only be self-imposed. As such, to implement it one must be somewhat independent, self-reliant, his own authority, and this is a difficult spirit to foster in such a paternalistic system as the republican one.
That your good faith is so quick to disappear in a thread on good faith is disappointing, but kind of proves the point.
How is protecting the people from their own and their neighbours' stupidity turning against them? How does it "suit the authorities" to lose revenue while they're having to expend enormous resources on saving people's lives?
Quoting NOS4A2
Like those who pre-empt or voluntarily comply with medical advice during epidemics?Quoting NOS4A2
Expressing amusement at a second face is not a breach of faith.
Conspiracy theories rarely consider such variables