Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recent philosophical work on trust has emphasised its importance to both epistemology and ethics, asking whether reasons to trust someone must be based on reasons to think her trustworthy. Hawley adopts two common assumptions. First, trust is primarily a three-place relation, involving two people and a task: you may trust me to look after your children, to keep a secret, or to tell the truth (Holton 1994, Jones 1996, Hardin 2002, Hieronymi 2008). We do sometimes speak of simply trusting someone, and Hawley will discuss this generalised trust in section 7.2. Second, trust involves expectations about both competence and willingness: when you trust me to look after your children, you take it that I am capable of childcare, and that I will exercise that capability as required.

The misuse of law firm pooled client accounts has been identified as one of the primary areas of money laundering and terrorist financing risk for the legal profession. This article demonstrates the varied role that client accounts can play in money laundering, through both purposeful exploitation (by the predicate offender, the lawyer/law firm, or both) of the client account or of other legitimate business processes in which the client account inevitably plays a role, and/or a failure to fulfil regulatory requirements. It examines how the nature of law firm pooled client accounts in the UK creates and shapes an ‘opportunity structure’ for money laundering, and the occupational and organisational context of this opportunity structure. The article argues that examining the opportunity structures created by client accounts is a more useful approach than categorising them as inherently low, medium or high risk, as is seen in many national risk assessments and reports. Identifying the factors that create opportunities for money laundering through law firm client accounts can direct policymakers striving to prevent money laundering in the legal profession towards more targeted oversight mechanisms.

According to doxastic accounts of trust, trusting a person to Φ involves, among other things, holding a belief about the trusted person: either the belief that the trusted person is trustworthy or the belief that she actually will Φ. In recent years, several philosophers have argued against doxastic accounts of trust. They have claimed that the phenomenology of trust suggests that rather than such a belief, trust involves some kind of non-doxastic mental attitude towards the trusted person, or a non-doxastic disposition to rely upon her. This paper offers a new account of reasons for trust and employs the account to defend a doxastic account of trust. The paper argues that reasons for trust are preemptive reasons for action or belief. Thus the Razian concept of preemptive reasons, which arguably plays a key role in our understanding of relations of authority, is also central to our understanding of relations of trust. Furthermore, the paper argues that acceptance of a preemptive account of reasons for trust supports the adoption of a doxastic account of trust, for acceptance of such an account both neutralizes central objections to doxastic accounts of trust and provides independent reasons supporting a doxastic account.

I provide an account of the cognitive attitude of trust that explains the role trust plays in the planning of rational agents. Many authors have dismissed choosing to trust as either impossible or irrational; however, this fails to account for the role of trust in practical reasoning. A can have therapeutic, coping, or corrective reasons to trust B to ø, even in the absence of evidence that B will ø. One can choose to engage in therapeutic trust to inspire trustworthiness, coping trust to simplify one's planning, or corrective trust to avoid doing a testimonial injustice. To accommodate such types of trust, without accepting doxastic voluntarism, requires an account of the cognitive attitude of trust broader than belief alone. I argue that trust involves taking the proposition that someone will do something as a premise in one's practical reasoning, which can be a matter of believing or accepting the proposition. I defend this account against objections that it (i) provides insufficient rational constraints on trust, (ii) conflates trust and pretense of trust, and (iii) cannot account for the rationality of back-up planning.

Across the management, social science, and business ethics literatures, and in much of the philosophy literature, trust is characterized as a disposition to act given epistemic states—beliefs and/or expectations about others and about the risks involved. This characterization of trust is best thought of as epistemological because epistemic states distinguish trust from other dispositions. The epistemological characterization of trust is the amoral one referred to in the title of this paper, and we argue that this characterization is conceptually inadequate. We outline and defend an alternative conception of trust as a moral phenomenon: when A trusts B to do something, A invites B to acknowledge and accept an obligation; when B accepts the invitation, B takes on an obligation; in that way trust creates an obligation. We conclude with an application, drawing out the difference between the epistemological conception of trust and our own in the context of Ghoshal et al.'s (Sloan Management Review 40:9—20, 1995, Academy of Management Learning & Education 4:75—91, 2005) critique of transaction cost theories of the firm.

The aim of the paper is to propose a way in which believing on trust can ground doxastic justification and knowledge. My focus will be the notion of trust that plays the role depicted by such cases as concerned Hardwig (J Philos 82:335–49, 1985; J Philos 88:693–708, 1991) in his early papers, papers that are often referenced in recent debates in social epistemology. My primary aim is not exegetical, but since it sometimes not so clear what Hardwig's claims are, I offer some remarks of interpretation that might be of interest. The main purpose of the paper, however, is this: following various cues in Hardwig's writing, I specify certain epistemic properties of agents in social systems, such that, roughly speaking, for agents to know (or be justified in believing) what the 'system knows', social relations of epistemic trust between agents in the system are necessary. I will suggest that we can view this social form of epistemic trust as non-inferential dispositions to believe what some individual or other source of information asserts or transmits. When this disposition is discriminating and defeater-sensitive, it can ground knowledge and justification. Or, more cautiously, we should be sympathetic to this view if we are inclined to accept the core insight of process reliabilism. Finally, I will offer some remarks about how epistemic trust and epistemic reasons may relate on this picture.

Fricker (2006a) has proposed that a hearer's knowledge that p acquired through trusting a speaker requires the speaker to know that p, and that therefore testimonial knowledge through trust is necessarily second-hand knowledge. In this paper, I argue that Fricker's view is problematic for four reasons: firstly, Fricker's dismissal of a central challenge to the second-handedness of testimonial knowledge is based on a significant misrepresentation of this challenge; secondly, on closer scrutiny an important distinction Fricker wants to draw is compromised by her account of trust; thirdly, Fricker's conception of trust is at odds with our natural understanding of this notion; fourthly, the reasons Fricker cites in support of her view are not sufficient to single out her view as the correct one, since rival views can also accommodate the relevant data.

Hardin believes that experience molds the psychology of trust. A person must prove his or her commitment to another person to be considered trustworthy. Examples are taken from opera and literature to show how trustworthiness is earned and what motivates people to gain trustworthiness and to trust others.

Jones discusses the source of moral knowledge and its relationship with epistemic dependency on others. Trust, testimony and moral acceptance are essential in developing a value system.