Deriving fairness from bargaining power threatens to reduce moral norms to mere bargaining.

Evidence

We see partner choice, and hence market-like phenomena, as the key factor in the evolution of human fairness. However, DeScioli is right to underscore the relationship that our model bears with bargaining theory. Even more than with bargaining theory in general, our approach to fairness is specifically related to the study of bargaining in markets, as pioneered by Rubinstein (1982). … If fairness is a consequence of bargaining with outside options, then fairness should be nothing but a translation into moral norms of the relative bargaining power of individuals, or, even worse, fairness should simply be a form of bargaining. DeScioli and Guala rightly remark that this would run counter to our current understanding of fairness. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 623

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reading purpose: the fumi-e as a mechanism designed to destroy partner choice. How much bargaining power does apostasy remove? This paradox of fairness-as-bargaining-power resonates with how the Japanese authorities strip Rodrigues of any outside option. — connects to: Fairness distributions reflect bargaining power, not just effort. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 443; Competitive signalling may drive moral conduct beyond mere fairness. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 526; Parochial altruism and self-sacrifice exceed mutualistic fairness models. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 269 (+4 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: The paradox that market-based fairness, taken to its logical end, collapses moral norms into raw power relations — this tension is dense and worth sitting with.

Related

• Fairness distributions reflect bargaining power, not just effort. (similarity 0.90)
• Fairness evolved to distribute payoffs by input, not equally. (similarity 0.87)
• Fairness evolved as a psychological device because outside market options constrain benefit distribution. (similarity 0.85)
• Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. (similarity 0.85)
• Fairness is self-interested because stingy partners get abandoned. (similarity 0.85)
• Competitive signalling may drive moral conduct beyond mere fairness. (similarity 0.85)
• Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control (similarity 0.85)
• Fairness rests on impartiality, not mutualistic cooperation. (similarity 0.84)
• Fairness emerges when partner choice links each interaction to outside opportunities. (similarity 0.84)
• Meritocratic fairness norms evolved as adaptations to partner-choice markets (similarity 0.84)
• Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.83)
• Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations (similarity 0.83)
• Moral fairness may itself have been shaped by natural selection. (similarity 0.83)
• Human morality may rest on a general normativizing capacity, not a dedicated fairness module. (similarity 0.82)
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations #responds-to (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 333
• Parochial altruism and self-sacrifice exceed mutualistic fairness models. #contradicts (0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 269