Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations

Evidence

Baumard et al. ask, “What makes humans moral beings?” (target article, Abstract). They propose an answer that involves people adapting to their social environment by sharing the costs and benefits of cooperation fairly and suggest a moral sense evolved to guide the distribution of gains resulting from cooperation. But their so-called moral sense is actually what most people would refer to instead as a fairness sense (a point the authors acknowledge at the end of the article). By redefining the term “morality” to mean fairness – and, indeed, fairness narrowly conceived as involving balancing inputs into and outcomes from interactions amongst strangers – they turn a blind eye to the rich and complex relational contexts in which we normally interact with other people and in which most of our moral concerns naturally arise. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 333

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s Big God/partner choice framework: the fumi-e ritual exploits exactly this gap between abstract fairness and relational moral obligation. — connects to: Humans hold systematic moral intuitions about proportionate sharing, helping, and punishment. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 6; Mutualistic anthropology explains moral anger as an evolved fairness-restoring mechanism — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 354; Moral gossip targets more than fairness, tracking loyalty and norm adherence too. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 436 (+13 more)
• DEFINE: Draws a sharp distinction between ‘fairness sense’ and ‘moral sense’ as separate concepts.
• ADDENDUM: Could serve the reader’s analysis of Rodrigues: the relational moral obligations he feels (toward God, parishioners, the Virgin) clash with the Japanese authority’s framing of apostasy as a transactional fairness matter.

Related

• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.87)
• Morality is an evolved sense of fairness, not a late intellectual achievement (similarity 0.87)
• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.87)
• Morality evolves in two steps, from selfish reciprocity to intrinsic fairness. (similarity 0.86)
• Moral norms differ by relationship type, not by one universal strategy. (similarity 0.85)
• Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.85)
• Human morality is contingent rather than invariant across circumstances. (similarity 0.84)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.84)
• Deriving fairness from bargaining power threatens to reduce moral norms to mere bargaining. (similarity 0.83)
• Moral fairness may itself have been shaped by natural selection. (similarity 0.83)
• Moral gossip targets more than fairness, tracking loyalty and norm adherence too. (similarity 0.83)
• Moral psychology broadened fairness-only models to include purity, hierarchy, and coalition domains. (similarity 0.83)
• Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.83)
• Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. (similarity 0.83)
• Competitive signalling may drive moral conduct beyond mere fairness. (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions #complicates (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 4
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. #qualifies (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 266
• Moral obligations derive from objective ideality, not from society or individual will #contradicts (0.80) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 356
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. #complicates (0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 605
• One-off hospitality expresses normative character rather than trust-based reciprocity #exemplifies (0.75)