Morality requires mutual advantage, not strict accounting of reciprocated acts.

Evidence

Incidentally, this analysis explains why someone who always reciprocates can still be morally condemned. Indeed, being moral is not about strict reciprocity but about mutual advantage. Let’s say that John always pay his debts, keeps note of every penny lent by friends, and reciprocates every glass of wine shared in a bar, but never helps someone he does not know and will not meet again, even when it is almost costless to him. We would not like to have John as our friend. Reciprocating on a strict act basis is evidence of a lack of a cooperative disposition. The true moral behavior is to help others when they need it, and they (or others) will help you when you need it. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 214

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the distinction between strict reciprocity and mutualistic cooperation as the actual basis of moral standing.
• XREF: Connects to the reading purpose on partner choice — John fails as a cooperative partner because his strict reciprocity signals refusal to enter a mutualistic relationship, not just refusal to reciprocate. — connects to: Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 670; The appearance of social contract arises from evolved mutualistic obligation, not real agreement. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 83; Group solidarity and in-group favoritism derive from mutualistic relationships, not independent moral rules. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 705 (+1 more)

Related

• Natural selection favors both the disposition to reciprocate and to volunteer help proactively. (similarity 0.86)
• Cooperation and morality are distinct categories. (similarity 0.85)
• Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.85)
• Altruistic cooperators still choose partners they trust and cooperate only where reciprocation is possible. (similarity 0.84)
• Generalized reciprocity cannot be explained by partner-control mechanisms. (similarity 0.84)
• Morality evolves in two steps, from selfish reciprocity to intrinsic fairness. (similarity 0.83)
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.82)
• Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.82)
• Fairness is self-interested because stingy partners get abandoned. (similarity 0.82)
• The appearance of social contract arises from evolved mutualistic obligation, not real agreement. (similarity 0.82)
• Group solidarity and in-group favoritism derive from mutualistic relationships, not independent moral rules. (similarity 0.81)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.81)
• Reciprocal altruism is really mutualism, not altruism (similarity 0.81)
• Partner selection produces genuine moral feelings, not just narrow self-interested cooperation. (similarity 0.81)
• Partner-choice cooperation theory does not explain the intrinsic moral sense. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Group solidarity and in-group favoritism derive from mutualistic relationships, not independent moral rules. #corroborates (0.78) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 705
• Opening with cooperation is rational self-interest, not mere morality #corroborates (0.75) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 544