Market models explain why moral standards vary across contexts, groups, and individuals.
Evidence
In sum, market models of morality are indeed powerful – more powerful even than Baumard et al. recognize, for such models can not only explain the evolution of mutualistic cooperation and the emotions that support it, but, importantly, they can also explain the vicissitudes of morality both within and between individuals, groups, and societies. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 400
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the reading purpose: the same moral agent feeling and behaving differently across contexts, which the fumi-e ritual exploits. — connects to: Moral behavior shifts with the market supply and demand of cooperative partners — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 394; Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 266; The underdetermination of partner-control models explains moral diversity, not failure. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 450 (+3 more)
- DEEPTHINKING: The position that ‘vicissitudes of morality’ — not just cooperation — are exactly what market/mutualistic models predict is a genuinely counterintuitive move against the moral-universalist framing.
Related
- Moral norms differ by relationship type, not by one universal strategy. (similarity 0.87)
- Moral behavior shifts with the market supply and demand of cooperative partners (similarity 0.86)
- The underdetermination of partner-control models explains moral diversity, not failure. (similarity 0.85)
- Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.84)
- Human morality is contingent rather than invariant across circumstances. (similarity 0.84)
- Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.83)
- Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.82)
- Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.82)
- Moral intuitions evolved as flexible, context-sensitive responses rather than a single universal faculty. (similarity 0.82)
- Mutualistic cost-benefit logic may explain transcendent moral sentiment. (similarity 0.82)
- Fairness evolved as a psychological device because outside market options constrain benefit distribution. (similarity 0.82)
- Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations (similarity 0.81)
- Meritocratic fairness norms evolved as adaptations to partner-choice markets (similarity 0.81)
- Moral conduct serves as a costly signal that pays in partner selection. (similarity 0.80)
- Deriving fairness from bargaining power threatens to reduce moral norms to mere bargaining. (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- Moral behavior shifts with the market supply and demand of cooperative partners
#exemplifies(0.95) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 394 - Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators.
#expands(0.95) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 266 - The underdetermination of partner-control models explains moral diversity, not failure.
#exemplifies(0.90) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 450 - Moral norms differ by relationship type, not by one universal strategy.
#exemplifies(0.90) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 334 - Mutualistic cost-benefit logic may explain transcendent moral sentiment.
#exemplifies(0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 265 - Duty-based moral cultures suppress cost-sensitivity in prosocial decisions.
#exemplifies(0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 558