Human morality is contingent rather than invariant across circumstances.
Evidence
Baumard et al. eschew market thinking in stressing the supposed invariance of moral/cooperative behavior across circumstances. To the contrary, humans display contingent morality/cooperation, and these shifts are best accounted for by market models of partner choice for mutually beneficial collaboration. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 390
Categorization
- XREF: Connects directly to the reader’s Big God vs. fumi-e analysis of Rodrigues — contingent morality is exactly the mechanism the fumi-e exploits, punishing in public the shift from ‘invariant moral compass’ to observable apostasy. — connects to: The religion-morality link is a recent cultural invention, not an ancient universal; Humans hold systematic moral intuitions about proportionate sharing, helping, and punishment. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 6; Moral obligations derive from objective ideality, not from society or individual will — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 356 (+17 more)
- ADDENDUM: Supports the ‘On Sacrifice’ article’s theme of visible public rituals destabilizing moral solidarity — this is the market-model framing of why public apostasy works.
Related
- Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations (similarity 0.84)
- Market models explain why moral standards vary across contexts, groups, and individuals. (similarity 0.84)
- Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.81)
- Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.81)
- Moral intuitions evolved as flexible, context-sensitive responses rather than a single universal faculty. (similarity 0.81)
- Moral norms differ by relationship type, not by one universal strategy. (similarity 0.81)
- Competitive signalling may drive moral conduct beyond mere fairness. (similarity 0.80)
- Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.80)
- A partner-choice account of morality predicts avoidant emotions dominate moral life (similarity 0.80)
- Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.80)
- Some cultures may lack a distinct moral domain (similarity 0.79)
- Moral conduct serves as a costly signal that pays in partner selection. (similarity 0.79)
- Humans hold systematic moral intuitions about proportionate sharing, helping, and punishment. (similarity 0.79)
- Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.79)
- Stranger-based game experiments miss most real moral contexts. (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- Moral obligations derive from objective ideality, not from society or individual will
#contradicts(0.95) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 356 - Moral rules cannot be created or altered by deliberate human enactment
#contradicts(0.95) — HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Law…, 443 - Moral norms differ by relationship type, not by one universal strategy.
#expands(0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 334