Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice.

Evidence

Thus, we suggest that fairness is not reducible to mutualism. Baumard and colleagues may be correct in their claim that the best model of mutualistic cooperation involves partner choice, but it would be a mistake to suppose that mutualistic cooperation is itself sufficient to explain intuitions about fairness. Instead, fairness often acts in opposition to the discriminative generosity that partner choice demands by asking individuals to treat others impartially. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 567

Categorization

• XREF: Connects directly to the reader’s stated reading purpose: the fumi-e forces public apostasy, and here partner choice is characterized as discriminative generosity that fairness opposes—the trampling ritual weaponizes exactly this tension. — connects to: Fairness rests on impartiality, not mutualistic cooperation. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 563; Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 610; Fairness equilibria require group-selection processes beyond partner choice alone. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 253 (+8 more)
• DEFINE: Sharpens the distinction between mutualistic cooperation (partner choice, discriminative) and fairness (impartiality, anti-discriminative).

Related

• Fairness rests on impartiality, not mutualistic cooperation. (similarity 0.92)
• Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control (similarity 0.92)
• Fairness equilibria require group-selection processes beyond partner choice alone. (similarity 0.90)
• Fairness evolved to distribute payoffs by input, not equally. (similarity 0.89)
• Fairness is self-interested because stingy partners get abandoned. (similarity 0.89)
• A preference for fairness can directly favor equalitarianism in cooperation. (similarity 0.89)
• Partner choice selects among folk-theorem equilibria just as group selection does. (similarity 0.88)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.88)
• Partner choice predicts fair cooperation while group selection predicts utilitarian cooperation. (similarity 0.88)
• Fairness emerges when partner choice links each interaction to outside opportunities. (similarity 0.87)
• Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.87)
• A disposition to fairness can evolve even when unshared, unlike a disposition to cooperate. (similarity 0.87)
• Morality evolves in two steps, from selfish reciprocity to intrinsic fairness. (similarity 0.86)
• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.86)
• Fairness evolved as a psychological device because outside market options constrain benefit distribution. (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control #contradicts (0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 610
• Partner-choice cooperation theory does not explain the intrinsic moral sense. #corroborates (0.82) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 56
• Fairness equilibria require group-selection processes beyond partner choice alone. #corroborates (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 253
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. #contradicts (0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 605