Competitive signalling may drive moral conduct beyond mere fairness.

Evidence

Baumard et al. argue that partner choice leads to fairness and mutualism, and that these form the basis for morality. While I very much agree with the focus on partner choice as a key driving force, I believe that mutualism takes us only so far, and that moral behaviour is better viewed in a signalling context. Through competitive signalling, evolution may lead to individuals displaying traits that are more generous than others, not just acting in a way that is the equal of others. Strategic investment in behaviours that benefit others so that actors can be seen as desirable partners may at least partly explain what we see as moral behaviour. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 526

Categorization

• XREF: Signalling theory of morality connects to the reader’s interest in how costly religious displays (fumi-e, sacrifice) function as partner-choice signals, echoing Baumard’s partner-choice framework in the reading purpose. — connects to: Moral gossip targets more than fairness, tracking loyalty and norm adherence too. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 436; Deriving fairness from bargaining power threatens to reduce moral norms to mere bargaining. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 623; Informal moral behavior builds reputation through accumulated small signals, defeating free-riding. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 80 (+5 more)

Related

• Moral conduct serves as a costly signal that pays in partner selection. (similarity 0.90)
• Moral gossip targets more than fairness, tracking loyalty and norm adherence too. (similarity 0.87)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.86)
• Fairness evolved as a costly signal of impartiality to avoid third-party condemnation. (similarity 0.85)
• Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.85)
• Deriving fairness from bargaining power threatens to reduce moral norms to mere bargaining. (similarity 0.85)
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.84)
• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.84)
• Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. (similarity 0.84)
• Genuinely moral partners signal higher reliability than strategically moral ones. (similarity 0.83)
• Morality evolves in two steps, from selfish reciprocity to intrinsic fairness. (similarity 0.83)
• Fairness evolved to distribute payoffs by input, not equally. (similarity 0.83)
• Fairness evolved as a psychological device because outside market options constrain benefit distribution. (similarity 0.83)
• Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations (similarity 0.83)
• Partner selection produces genuine moral feelings, not just narrow self-interested cooperation. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Fairness evolved as a costly signal of impartiality to avoid third-party condemnation. #corroborates (0.90) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 574
• Informal moral behavior builds reputation through accumulated small signals, defeating free-riding. #corroborates (0.82) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 80
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. #expands (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 605
• Deriving fairness from bargaining power threatens to reduce moral norms to mere bargaining. #complicates (0.78) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 623
• Moral fairness may itself have been shaped by natural selection. #corroborates (0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 12