Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators.

Evidence

Baumard et al. define morality in terms of a naturally selected propensity for fairness. They elaborate on an evolutionary rationale along Golden Rule lines of quid pro quo, fairly standard since the pioneering works of Trivers (1971), Axelrod and Hamilton (1981), and Alexander (1987). For the authors, morality stems from an environmental adaptation that leads individuals to share costs and benefits of cooperation equally, developing into a “specific and non-instrumental preference for fairness … as a distinct ‘moral sense’” (sect. 4, para. 4). They argue that this “mutualistic” model of morality provides insight and unity in understanding now classic problems in the cross-cultural development of human morality, including unselfish behavior in economic games, cooperation with anonymous strangers, and taboo trade-offs that defy short-term utilitarian interests. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 266

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distills the mutualistic model of morality: fairness as a distinct non-instrumental moral sense rooted in evolved cost-sharing.
• XREF: Situates the modern reciprocal-altruism lineage (Trivers, Axelrod & Hamilton, Alexander) that the reader’s Big God and partner-choice frameworks build on. — connects to: Costly requirements, not religion per se, drove religious communes’ survival advantage; Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 4; Humans hold systematic moral intuitions about proportionate sharing, helping, and punishment. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 6 (+19 more)

Related

• Morality is an evolved sense of fairness, not a late intellectual achievement (similarity 0.91)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.91)
• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.91)
• Morality evolves in two steps, from selfish reciprocity to intrinsic fairness. (similarity 0.91)
• Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.90)
• Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.89)
• Moral fairness may itself have been shaped by natural selection. (similarity 0.87)
• Cooperation and morality are distinct categories. (similarity 0.87)
• Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations (similarity 0.87)
• Mutualistic cost-benefit logic may explain transcendent moral sentiment. (similarity 0.87)
• A disposition to fairness can evolve even when unshared, unlike a disposition to cooperate. (similarity 0.87)
• Fairness is self-interested because stingy partners get abandoned. (similarity 0.86)
• A preference for fairness can directly favor equalitarianism in cooperation. (similarity 0.86)
• Fairness evolved as a psychological device because outside market options constrain benefit distribution. (similarity 0.86)
• Meritocratic fairness norms evolved as adaptations to partner-choice markets (similarity 0.85)

Broader Connections

• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. #contradicts (0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 605
• Mutualistic cost-benefit logic may explain transcendent moral sentiment. #expands (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 265
• Fairness regulates rather than generates the moralized expression of evolved dispositions #qualifies (0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 692