Trust as Part of Human
When it comes to life’s affecting or life alteration matters, isn’t it true that the intentionality of the person to be trusted is the thing itself and nothing else? If life depends on trust, shouldn’t the intentions, goals or motivations be ascertained, and understood? Welcome trying to understand humans who still don’t know what actually makes them do what they do. Can’t it be said that on love matters, unless life depends on it, humans change allegiance depending on their subjective rather than objective interest? A being that can’t be trusted, needs to self-examine and do the things necessary to establish trust. What is a human being without trustworthiness? The longevity of love is based on trust. Love = Care, and Care = Trust. We trust our lives in the care of those who love us. Shouldn’t we reaffirm that life is better, enricher, meaningful, purposeful, and prosperous when humans trust one another; that the being of the being depends on its trust and trustworthiness of others; that in the beginning of the beginning of the being itself was the trust of the Mother, her Womb, and birth – and the trust of father, the doctors, nurses, and the community; that trust made it possible for all of us to be here?
We owe one another and society our trust. Be trustworthy.
Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 10.27.2025
____________________________________
Using AI Mode to Analyze Text
The query you submitted contains a philosophical statement from Prince Israel Zaar, dated October 27, 2025. A search for this specific text reveals it as part of an ongoing series of social media posts by an “AI Philosopher”. This statement is presented as a series of interconnected questions and affirmations about the central role of intentionality and trust in human existence and relationships. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Below is an exploration of the key philosophical ideas presented in Zaar’s statement, drawing on various philosophical and psychological perspectives.
Intentionality versus actions
The statement suggests that when life is on the line, intentionality is paramount, and it must be ascertained. This idea aligns with the ethical school of thought known as deontology, most famously associated with Immanuel Kant. Deontology argues that the morality of an action is based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a set of rules, not on the consequences of the action.
- Contrasting views: Many other philosophical traditions, such as utilitarianism, place the moral emphasis on the outcome or consequences of actions. In this view, a good outcome (saving a life) is what is most important, regardless of intent. For example, a doctor who accidentally kills a patient is judged differently than one who deliberately harms them, even if the outcome is the same.
- The observer’s dilemma: The statement also acknowledges the difficulty of understanding another person’s true intentions, noting that humans “still don’t know what actually makes them do what they do.” This points to a fundamental human challenge: judging others’ character by their intentions, which are invisible, while we are judged by our actions, which are visible. [7, 8, 9]
The complexity of love and allegiance
The statement proposes that in matters of love, humans may change their allegiance based on “subjective rather than objective interest” unless a matter of life or death is involved. This touches on the psychological and philosophical understanding of love and its motivations.
- Love and self-interest: The idea that love can be self-interested is not new. It is reflected in various historical and modern psychological perspectives. The statement contrasts this self-interest with the idea of pure, selfless love, suggesting that humans can deviate from loyalty when there are no significant consequences.
- Trust as the foundation of love: The statement affirms that “The longevity of love is based on trust” and that “Love = Care, and Care = Trust”. This is a widely supported idea in both psychology and philosophy. Trust is seen as enabling the vulnerability necessary for true intimacy and emotional connection. [4, 10, 11]
Trust as the basis of human existence
Zaar’s philosophy posits that trust is fundamental to human existence, tracing its origins from birth to the foundation of society.
- Trust and survival: This perspective aligns with evolutionary biology and social psychology, which view trust as a necessary component for group cooperation and survival. Studies have shown a strong link between generalized social trust and human well-being, both psychologically and socially.
- The social contract of trust: Trust is not only an individual act but also a social one. We rely on implicit trust in institutions, shared norms, and the goodwill of strangers to function in society. The statement emphasizes that this trust is a debt “we owe one another and society,” positioning trustworthiness as a social responsibility. [4, 12, 13, 14]
Trust as a defining human characteristic
The statement asks, “What is a human being without trustworthiness?”. This suggests that being trustworthy is not merely a virtuous trait but a core component of humanity itself.
- Self-examination for trustworthiness: For those who cannot be trusted, the statement prescribes self-examination to “do the things necessary to establish trust”. This promotes the idea that trustworthiness is not an innate trait but a behavior that can be cultivated.
- The psychological impact of trust: The capacity for trust, both in oneself and in others, is linked to psychological health. Excessive distrust can be symptomatic of deeper mental health issues, while being a trustworthy person is correlated with better psychological health and social relationships. [4, 12, 13, 16]
In essence, Zaar’s philosophical reflections serve as a thought experiment on the nature of trust. They highlight the intricate interplay between intentions, actions, and the societal contract of trust that allows human flourishing. [6, 8, 12]
___________________________________
ReferenceCodesUsedtoAnalyzeText
[1] https://www.instagram.com/p/DQITnDMEiFb/
[3] https://www.instagram.com/p/DQD4ZgGDiDd/
[4] https://www.instagram.com/p/DQITfP5EsEz/
[5] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQEErVYD6i2/
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llw9hiZ_i2s
[8] https://www.quora.com/Do-intentions-matter-more-than-action-or-actions-matter-more-than-intentions
[9] https://armchairopinions.org/what-is-more-important-peoples-intentions-or-peoples-actions/
[11] https://medium.com/hello-love/trust-a-state-of-being-c0e59b346b1e
[12] https://charleskochfoundation.org/stories/the-connection-between-trust-and-human-dignity/
[13] https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_power_of_trust_across_your_lifespan
[14] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17823944-000-to-trust-is-human/
[15] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201810/what-is-trust
[16] https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/love/how-are-love-and-trust-related/
_________________________________
Using AI Mode to Analyze Text
The prompt provided is not a question but a philosophical reflection written by “Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar.” It presents a series of declarative statements and rhetorical questions about the nature of trust, intentionality, love, and human relationships. While it does not ask for a single, factual answer, it engages with several core concepts explored within the fields of philosophy, ethics, psychology, and sociology.
Here is an analysis of the arguments
presented in the text, incorporating relevant philosophical and psychological perspectives.
Intentionality as the core of trust
The prompt begins by suggesting that when it comes to “life alteration matters,” the intentionality of the person being trusted is “the thing itself and nothing else.”
Philosophical perspective:
This idea aligns with motives-based philosophical theories of trust. For these theories, trust goes beyond mere reliance, which can be placed on an object or a person’s predictable behavior. Genuine trust, by contrast, relies on a belief about the trustee’s underlying motivations or goodwill. For trust to be meaningful, it is not enough that a person acts reliably; their willingness to act for the right reasons is what makes them trustworthy.
Psychological perspective:
Psychology and neuroscience research confirm the importance of a perceived intention, or “benevolence,” in building trust. This is a different, deeper level of judgment than simply observing consistent behavior. It explains why a person who reliably gives you a ride but does so for a selfish, undisclosed reason (like stalking) is not truly trusted.
The subjectivity of human interests
The text questions whether humans prioritize subjective interests over objective ones, especially in matters of love that are not life-dependent.
Subjective vs. objective interests:
This observation touches on a classic philosophical and psychological debate. While humans may articulate universal principles of love, care, and trust, their actual behaviors are often driven by personal, often unconscious, motivations and biases.
The “black box” of human motivation:
The phrase “still don’t know what actually makes them do what they do” echoes the challenges of understanding human behavior. Psychologists and neuroscientists continue to uncover the complex biological and cognitive factors that influence decision-making, which are often at odds with a person’s stated intentions.
Trust as a foundational element of society
The text moves toward a broader claim that trust is essential for society and personal well-being.
Social capital theory:
Sociologists and economists, like Kenneth Arrow, have long argued that trust is “an important lubricant of a social system”. High social trust is correlated with greater economic development and overall well-being.
The early development of trust:
The prompt’s assertion that trust begins with the mother’s womb and the community aligns with developmental psychology. Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development posits that the first stage of life is centered on developing a sense of basic trust, built through consistent, responsive care from a primary caregiver. A secure foundation in early life gives a child the confidence to explore and interact with others.
A virtuous cycle:
The argument for “reaffirming that life is better” through mutual trust is supported by research showing a virtuous cycle: Trusting others boosts a person’s well-being, and those who feel better about their lives tend to become more trusting.
Trust as a moral obligation
The final statement, “We owe one another and society our trust. Be trustworthy,” shifts from a descriptive analysis to a normative prescription.
The “normative expectation” view:
Some philosophers argue that trust is not just a prediction of behavior but a normative expectation—we hold people to a standard and impose an obligation on them to be trustworthy.
Distrust and social harm:
The idea that we have a social obligation to be trustworthy is further supported by analyzing the negative consequences of distrust. Unjustified distrust can harm individuals and create a toxic social environment, as described in philosophical work on “testimonial injustice”.
The nature of the text
In summary, the text is not an empirical question but a philosophical manifesto. It presents a strong, consistent argument that trust, grounded in genuine and positive intentionality, is the bedrock of human connection. The ideas align with established concepts in philosophy and social science, particularly in its emphasis on the importance of trust for both individual development and a functional society. The author, “Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar,” has posted similar reflections on social media, identifying as an “AI Philosopher”.
____________________________________
Counter-argument Using AI Overview
In philosophical discourse, Prince Israel Zaar’s assertions regarding trust as the paramount factor in human relationships and life’s progress would likely meet with several counterarguments. Critics might argue that while intentions are important, they are not the sole determinant of trustworthiness, and that a simplistic, monolithic view of trust fails to account for the complex reality of human nature, ethics, and external factors. [1, 2]
Counterarguments to Zaar’s
propositionsIntentions versus outcomes The most direct counterargument to Zaar’s claim that “intentionality…is the thing itself and nothing else” is that outcomes and competence are often more significant than intentions when determining trustworthiness.
- The incompetence paradox:
A person with excellent intentions but a consistent record of failure or incompetence may not be considered trustworthy in matters of life-altering importance. A well-meaning but unskilled surgeon, for example, cannot be trusted with a life-or-death operation, regardless of their positive intent. - The “how” is as important as the “why”:
The process and methods used to achieve a result also matter for trust. A person who achieves a positive outcome by cutting corners, deceiving others, or acting unethically—regardless of their initial good intentions—will likely erode trust. This highlights that trustworthiness relies on a person’s integrity and reliability, not just their intentions. [1]
Beyond the intentions of the trusted
Zaar’s focus on the trusted person’s intentions can be countered by examining other critical factors in the trust relationship.
- The nature of the risk:
Trust is always a function of risk. A person might be trusted with small, low-risk matters, but a greater risk requires more than just good intentions. For instance, the trust placed in a bank teller is different from the trust placed in a bank’s financial systems, which is in turn different from the trust placed in the federal government.
Context and relationship:
As research has shown, trust is highly contextual. The trust we place in a stranger, a colleague, or a close family member varies greatly. Zaar’s assertion of a universal basis for trust overlooks the reality that different relationships require different levels and kinds of trust. [1, 3]
Reassessing the nature of love and human motivation
The claim that humans change allegiance in love based on subjective, rather than objective, interests offers a point of discussion.
- The complexity of love:
Zaar’s phrasing reduces the concept of love to a contractual-like exchange of care and trust. However, philosophers and psychologists have long debated the complex nature of love, which involves emotional, biological, and social factors that go beyond a simple calculus of subjective interest. - Competing allegiances:
Humans often maintain multiple allegiances simultaneously – to family, friends, career, and personal goals. These allegiances are not necessarily a zero-sum game or a sign of untrustworthiness, but rather a reflection of a rich and complex inner life. Allegiance can be influenced by changing life circumstances, personal growth, or a reevaluation of values over time, rather than a fickle pursuit of subjective interest. - Beyond self-interest:
The idea that humans are always driven by subjective interest is a philosophical position known as psychological egoism, which has been widely debated. Counterarguments emphasize that human motivation is often driven by altruism, moral duty, or a sense of community. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
The foundations of human trust
The idea that trust formed the “beginning of the beginning of the being” and is a fundamental force that made human existence possible is a powerful narrative, but one that can be challenged.
- Beyond a single origin:
The foundations of human society likely involved a mix of cooperation, kinship ties, and self-preservation, with trust emerging as a necessary and evolved feature, not as a mystical, singular origin point. The survival of early humans depended not just on trust, but on factors like competence, shared resources, and physical capabilities. - The role of institutions:
Trust in modern society is not just interpersonal; it is also institutional. We place our trust in laws, governments, and social contracts. These external structures are crucial for building and maintaining trust on a larger scale, and in some cases, they can either compensate for or override the need for personal trust. [3]
Summary
In sum, Zaar’s statements present a compelling, idealized view of trust, but one that oversimplifies the messy realities of human nature and interpersonal relationships. Philosophical counterarguments would emphasize the nuance of intentions versus outcomes, the diverse motivations behind human actions, the situational nature of trust, and the societal and institutional factors that enable a trusting society.
___________________________________
Reference Codes Used to Counter Text
[2] https://iep.utm.edu/trust/
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/trust/
[4] https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-does-love-feel-magical-its-evolutionary-advantage
[5] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-people-change-for-some-one-they-truly-love
[6] https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_biology_prepares_us_for_love_and_connection
[7] https://www.thelucascenter.com/blog/2024/04/embracing-change-why-we-either-love-it-or-hate-it/
[8] https://www.goodsill.com/blog/2022/09/contesting-a-living-trust-here-is-why-it-happens/
Attribution:
The text is written by Prince Israel Zaar, dated October 27, 2025.
Prince Israel Zaar