Some philosophers argue that
trust is more than a relationship of reliance. Philosophers such as Annette Baier have made a difference between trust and reliance by saying that trust can be betrayed, while reliance can only be disappointed (Baier 1986, 235)
[1]. Carolyn McLeod explains Baier's argument by giving the following examples we can rely on our clock to give the time, but we do not feel betrayed when it breaks, thus, we cannot say that we trusted it; we are not trusting when we are suspicious of the other person, because this is in fact an expression of distrust (McLeod 2006)
[2]. Thus, trust is different from reliance in the sense that the truster must accept the risk of being betrayed.
A trusted party is presumed to seek to fulfill policies, ethical codes, law and their previous promises.
Trust does not need to involve belief in the good character, vices, or morals of the other party. Persons engaged in a criminal activity usually trust each other to some extent. Also, trust does not need to include an action that you and the other party are mutually engaged in. Trust is a statement about what is otherwise unknown -- for example, because it is far away, cannot be verified, or is in the future.
In the social sciences, the subtleties of trust are a subject of ongoing research. In sociology (and psychology) the degree to which one party trusts another is a measure of belief in the honesty, benevolence and competence of the other party. Based on the most recent research, a failure in trust may be forgiven more easily if it is interpreted as a failure of competence rather than a lack of benevolence or honesty.
