Fairness evolved as a psychological device because outside market options constrain benefit distribution.
Evidence
In this market, individuals should never consent to enter into an interaction in which the marginal benefit of their investment is lower than the average benefit they could receive elsewhere. If two individuals have the same average outside opportunities, they should both receive the same marginal benefit from each resource unit they invest in a joint cooperative venture. In the long run, we argue, such an evolutionary process should have led to the selection of a sense of fairness, a psychological device to treat each other in a fair way. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 201
Categorization
- XREF: Directly extends the reader’s stated reading purpose — the fumi-e ritual as a tool to destroy partner-choice/market options, and Baumard et al.’s mutualistic morality. Also connects to Norenzayan’s Big God mechanism as a different enforcement path for the same cooperative end. — connects to: Moral fairness may itself have been shaped by natural selection. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 12; Sensitivity to merit and equity emerges early and universally in children — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 657; Fairness emerges when partner choice links each interaction to outside opportunities. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 45 (+7 more)
- ADDENDUM: Supports the ‘On Sacrifice’ article’s theme of rituals designed to bind or disrupt social solidarity — here the market logic that undercuts a ritual’s coercive power.
Related
- Fairness emerges when partner choice links each interaction to outside opportunities. (similarity 0.91)
- Fairness evolved to distribute payoffs by input, not equally. (similarity 0.90)
- Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.90)
- A disposition to fairness can evolve even when unshared, unlike a disposition to cooperate. (similarity 0.88)
- Meritocratic fairness norms evolved as adaptations to partner-choice markets (similarity 0.88)
- Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control (similarity 0.88)
- Morality evolves in two steps, from selfish reciprocity to intrinsic fairness. (similarity 0.87)
- Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.86)
- Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. (similarity 0.86)
- Deriving fairness from bargaining power threatens to reduce moral norms to mere bargaining. (similarity 0.85)
- Fairness equilibria require group-selection processes beyond partner choice alone. (similarity 0.85)
- Fairness in cooperation requires outside options, not contribution. (similarity 0.85)
- Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.84)
- A preference for fairness can directly favor equalitarianism in cooperation. (similarity 0.84)
- Moral fairness may itself have been shaped by natural selection. (similarity 0.83)
Broader Connections
- Meritocratic fairness norms evolved as adaptations to partner-choice markets
#expands(0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 324 - Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control
#expands(0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 610 - Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators.
#corroborates(0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 266