Moral norms differ by relationship type, not by one universal strategy.

Evidence

Psychological research in the relationships field (including years’ worth of research by one of us, but that of many others as well) indicates clearly that people do not follow the same type of cooperative norm in all their relationships. Instead, they utilize different norms in different relationships and at different relationship stages (Clark & Beck 2011; Clark & Mills 1979; 1993; 2012; Clark et al. 1986; 1989). In some (“communal”) relationships people keep track of partner needs and benefit partners non-contingently in response to their needs, desires, and goals. In other (“exchange”) relationships, people follow a tit-for-tat strategy. Adhering to either norm can be considered moral, depending on the type of relationship. For instance, it is wrong for a parent to neglect to feed his child but not equivalently bad to neglect to feed a stranger. It is also wrong for a person not to pay a grocer for an orange but not wrong for a child not to repay his parent for the orange. Relational context clearly matters. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 334

Categorization

• XREF: Directly bolsters the reader’s analytical frame: the fumi-e trampling is aimed at breaking the Christian community’s distinctive communal norm, a relational norm that economic-game mutualism models (Baumard et al.) cannot see. — connects to: Human morality is contingent rather than invariant across circumstances. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 390; Market models explain why moral standards vary across contexts, groups, and individuals. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 400; Some cultures may lack a distinct moral domain — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 489 (+5 more)
• DEFINE: Defines communal vs. exchange relationships as distinct moral frameworks.

Related

• Norms shaped by kin altruism and group solidarity are not necessarily moral norms. (similarity 0.87)
• Market models explain why moral standards vary across contexts, groups, and individuals. (similarity 0.87)
• Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations (similarity 0.85)
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.83)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.83)
• Stranger-based game experiments miss most real moral contexts. (similarity 0.82)
• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.82)
• Cooperation and morality are distinct categories. (similarity 0.82)
• Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. (similarity 0.82)
• Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.82)
• Moral gossip targets more than fairness, tracking loyalty and norm adherence too. (similarity 0.82)
• Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.82)
• Moral behavior shifts with the market supply and demand of cooperative partners (similarity 0.81)
• Partner choice predicts fair cooperation while group selection predicts utilitarian cooperation. (similarity 0.81)
• Competitive signalling may drive moral conduct beyond mere fairness. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. #corroborates (0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 567
• More cooperation is not always desirable across all groups. #corroborates (0.85)
• Human ultrasociality rests on cultural moral systems and reciprocity rather than kin selection. #corroborates (0.80) — Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K, Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by…, 6