Portrait of Samuel Johnson commissioned for He...

Image via Wikipedia

I came across this on mallowstreet and thought it relevent to many of the discussions on this blog.

I’ve written about ethics and political philosophy all my working life, but until the last two years I did not write on trust. If anyone had asked me why I didn’t, I would probably have said that trust was important, but that it was a social attitude.  

My work was on basic philosophical and practical questions about justice.  I wrote about reason and action, principles and practices, duties and rights, but not about social attitudes. Trust, as I saw it, was mainly of interest to sociologists, journalists and pollsters: they ask regularly whom we trust.  Some of our answers  (lookat the MORI website, show that many of us now claim not to trust various professions.

Yet I noticed that people often choose to rely on the very people whom they claimed not to trust.  They said they didn’t trust the food industry or the police, but they bought supermarket food and called the police when trouble threatened.   I began to see that there is a big gulf between saying we don’t  trust others and refusing to place trust, between (claimed) attitudes and action.   Bit by bit I concluded that the ‘crisis of trust’ that supposedly grips us is better described as an attitude, indeed a culture, of suspicion.   I then began to question the common assumption that the crisis of trust arises because others    untrustworthy.    I began to notice that there were lots of news
stories about breach of trust, especially about supposedly scandalous cases, but that there was surprisingly little systematic evidence of growing untrustworthiness.

Two years ago I was asked to give the Gifford Lectures in Edinburgh for 2001. I chose trust in medicine, science and biotechnology as my topic. These lectures are about to appear under the title Autonomy and Trust in
Bioethics (April 2002, Cambridge University |Press). When I finished writing I knew there was a lot more to be said about trust and mistrust.  I had come to think that our new culture of accountability, which is promoted as the way to reduce untrustworthiness and to secure ever more perfect control of institutional and professional performance, was taking us in the wrong direction.
So when the BBC approached me to see what I could offer for the Reith Lectures, I suggested that I could look more broadly at trust and accountability, particularly in the professions and the public sector. In the lectures I argue that having misdiagnosed what ails British society we are now busy prescribing copious draughts of the wrong medicine. We are imposing ever more stringent forms of control. We are requiring those in the public sector and the professions to account in excessive and sometimes irrelevant detail to regulators and inspectors, auditors and examiners. The very demands of accountability often make it harder for them to serve public.

Our revolution in accountability has not reduced attitudes of mistrust, but rather reinforced a culture of suspicion. Instead of working towards intelligent accountability based on good governance, independent
inspection and careful reporting, we are galloping towards central planning by performance indicators, reinforced by obsessions with blame and compensation. This is pretty miserable both for those who feel
suspicious and for those who are suspected of untrustworthy action – sometimes with little evidence.
In the Reith Lectures I outline a much more practical view of trust. The lectures are not about attitudes of trust, but about actively placing and refusing trust and the sorts of evidence we need if we are to place trust
well. Far from suggesting that we should trust blindly, I argue that we should place trust with care and discrimination, and that this means that we need to pay more attention to the accuracy of information provided to
the public.  

Placing trust well can never guarantee immunity from breaches of trust: life does not provide guarantees. There is no total answer to the old question ‘Who shall guard the guardians?’, and there is no way of eliminating all risk of disappointment. Nevertheless, many of us would agree with Samuel Johnson “it is better to be sometimes cheated than never to have trusted”.
If we are to reduce the culture of suspicion, many changes will be needed. We will need to give up childish fantasies that we can have total guarantees of others’ performance. We will need to free professionals and
the public service to serve the public. We will need to work towards more intelligent forms of accountability. We will need to rethink a media culture in which spreading suspicion has become a routine activity, and to
move towards a robust configuration of press freedom that is appropriate to twenty first century communications technology.

This won’t be easy. We have placed formidable obstacles in our own path: it is time to start removing them.

About henry tapper

Founder of the Pension PlayPen,, partner of Stella, father of Olly . I am the Pension Plowman
This entry was posted in Bankers, Church of England, corporate governance and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRUST – Onora O’Neil

  1. Pingback: THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRUST ? Onora O?Neil | Pensions UK Commentary

  2. Pingback: THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRUST ? Onora O?Neil | The Pension Service Review

  3. magnificent put up, very informative. I wonder why the opposite
    specialists of this sector do not notice this.
    You must proceed your writing. I am sure, you’ve a great readers’ base already!

  4. The second process falls under the Independent Administration of Estate’s Act (IAEA) and allows probate administrators to manage the estate without court authorization. Add in the cost of required repairs and profits fly out the window. Good real estate agents help you to earn more profit and give you more guidelines.

  5. zetetes says:

    Good work, Señor Tapper, to highlight Onora O’Neill’s eloquent and authoritative account of how the climate of late-modernity does such an excellent job of undermining almost all of our institutions. Such that even the word ‘institution’ can hardly be uttered without a pejorative ring being immediately assumed. My own interest is in diagnosing the genesis of this distrust, and opening up more informed debate about possible remedial measures. Cock-eyed optimism?!!

    You highlighted this social pathology in 2012: it is still news and we let such notions slide into obscurity, without having caused hardly a ripple, let alone any remedial thought and action, at our peril!

    All best with your blog – a worthy topic! If and when I get my “Cart Project” blog up and running I should love you to be an occasional correspondent!


    ps not sure my “zetetes” WordPress account is viable but I can be got if needs be at j.fairhead at

Leave a Reply