Morality, Trust, and Pragmatism: Navigating Human Relationships in a Complex World

The problem with philosophy is that it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are aspects that work best for you, and then there are others that are extremely detrimental. The biggest question that philosophy often deals with is the question of morality. But why does this question keep arising every single time? From my experience, it seems that the question of morality—whether through one’s life advice from philosophers or through religion—is about how to deal with your fellow man. Back in those days, people only saw those who were close to them in their village, town, or tribe. Rarely was there a moment where they had to deal with the “other,” those who were not part of their group.

We live in a time where multiple cultures and societies, even within the same country, have more interactions than ever before. We are now dealing with different traditions, rituals, expectations, and most importantly, different ideas of common sense. Religion, thus far, is the only moral system that seems to unite a large segment of the population due to a shared belief in the doctrine of that religion. However, it is not a universal solution for humanity or for the individuals that make up humanity.

Therefore, in a time where you deal with the “other” more often than your ancestors ever did, or perhaps ever will, it should be understood that morality is a question among those you call your brothers and those who share the same identity markers you consider important—whether that be race, culture, or religion. For those who do not fit those criteria, despite their good nature, you must treat them with a pragmatic attitude, acknowledging that they may act in self-interest, which could lead to betrayal if their fundamental identities do not match yours. Ultimately, it is important to realize that you can never fully trust them. The only entity you can truly trust is God, for He is omnipotent and is the reason everything is created the way it is. For those who do not believe in God, are atheists, or agnostics, this can be interpreted as relying on the laws of the universe and the way the world literally works—whether these be social facts stemming from the human race or objective truths derived from observational science.

For an individual who is truly alone, in the sense that none of their basic identities aid them in any way, shape, or form, the best approach is to give everyone the basic respect of their individuality from the first encounter. Trust and respect should be built over time, and if they are broken, the individual in question becomes someone to be treated pragmatically, even exploited, until they prove they are worthy of being your “brother.” The question of morality should not arise in such cases; rather, self-interest and self-preservation should take precedence.

That being said, in a union between two individuals of a romantic nature, the ultimate goal should be overcoming the issues of basic identities or creating a new common identity that forms a family unit. This allows for the betterment of the next generation. It is the responsibility of these generations to carry on the lessons and values stemming from the life experiences of the two individuals who have decided to enter this union. I bring this up because marriage, relationships, and even best friendships are exceptions to what I’ve said, but they work according to the same principles: common interest and self-interest, over a long period, create trust. That trust forms a bond that doesn’t easily break. The longer this trust is built, the stronger the bond becomes. It is best understood as an analogy between iron and steel. Iron, being a pure component, only needs one ingredient to craft tools, but steel, an alloy, is inherently stronger because it is reinforced by diverse materials—primarily carbon. In this analogy, trust is the carbon that strengthens the bond.

These are the rules by which an individual must conduct themselves in terms of dealing with human relations. Otherwise, that individual must be pragmatic with the world around them. To think morality is for everyone is a “slave mentality” that benefits a larger group, but in the end, you can only live for yourself. If you are religious, you are the only one who can fulfill your duties toward God. Anything that deters you from these two things—self-preservation and duty to God—is inherently an obstacle. It is up to you what you end up doing with it.