Group solidarity and in-group favoritism derive from mutualistic relationships, not independent moral rules.

Evidence

The logic of mutual advantage thus explains why people’s sense of moral obligation is modulated according to closeness, distance, or absence of social relationships. In particular, since helping other members of one’s group and benefiting in turn from their help is precisely what makes belonging to the group advantageous, treating everyone in the same way independently of affiliation would undermine the value that we accord to our stronger relationships. Hence, group solidarity is a direct consequence of mutualistic relationships. As mutualists, people recognize each other’s right to have special commitments to members of their groups and networks. This right entails its own limits because it is normal and rightful to belong to several nested and overlapping groups, each of which is a source of legitimate rights and duties. If we want to enjoy the benefit of groups, we need to favor in-group members just as we expect them to favor us – not in every respect, but in those respects that make the group beneficial to its members. Thus, when David Kaczynski denounced his brother Theodore (a.k.a. the Unabomber), he felt that his duty to help his brother did not include being an accomplice in his serial bombings, whereas his duty as a citizen included helping to free others of the threat of such bombings, given that he was in a unique position to do so. In both cases, his duties were mutualistically calibrated to what he assumed he was entitled to expect from others, as a brother and as a citizen. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 705

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Small transparent groups need no moralizing gods to sustain cooperation — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 409; Prosocial religious groups outcompeted rivals through internal cooperation.; Norms shaped by kin altruism and group solidarity are not necessarily moral norms. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 693 (+10 more)

Related

• Norms shaped by kin altruism and group solidarity are not necessarily moral norms. (similarity 0.89)
• Morality requires mutual advantage, not strict accounting of reciprocated acts. (similarity 0.81)
• The appearance of social contract arises from evolved mutualistic obligation, not real agreement. (similarity 0.81)
• Reciprocal altruism is really mutualism, not altruism (similarity 0.81)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.81)
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.81)
• Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.80)
• Moral norms differ by relationship type, not by one universal strategy. (similarity 0.80)
• Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.80)
• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.79)
• Generalized reciprocity cannot be explained by partner-control mechanisms. (similarity 0.78)
• Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. #corroborates (0.92) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 605
• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions #corroborates (0.88) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 4
• Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. #contradicts (0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 567
• Reciprocal altruism is really mutualism, not altruism #expands (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 211
• Moral norms differ by relationship type, not by one universal strategy. #expands (0.78) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 334