Morality serves a self-directed ego function of constructing moral identity.

Evidence

We want to insist that there is a fundamental ego function underlying morality that cannot be overlooked when thinking about the proximate mechanism of its emergence and formation. Morality could as well arise from self-consciousness, the need for internal consistency (self-regard, integrity, or moral reconciliation and centrality; see Frimer & Walker 2008), and/or the adoption of a particular perspective in moral space (Taylor 1989). To conclude, universal and arguably unique to our species is the fact that individuals work hard at constructing their own moral identity. They may change values and develop new ones in ways that vary within and between groups. These important dimensions of morality tend to be blurred at the scale of evolution and population selection and cannot be overlooked. Children in their development reveal that much more complex mechanisms underlie morality, and thereby illuminate the basic question of what makes humans moral beings. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 546

Categorization

• XREF: Challenges a purely adaptive/evolutionary reading of morality; echoes the reader’s own interest in moral identity and reputation management (Reluctant Fundamentalist, Namesake both trade on identity construction). — connects to: Morality resembles a self-enforcing contract between present and future selves. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 231; Interests crystallize into perceived moral commitments through psychological supervenience.; Egoistic motivations alone cannot sustain cooperation without plausible self-regulating structures (+4 more)
• QUESTION: How does the internal, self-consistency motive for morality square with Norenzayan’s external Big God mechanism? Are they complementary or competing accounts?

Related

• Morality resembles a self-enforcing contract between present and future selves. (similarity 0.84)
• Morality is an evolved sense of fairness, not a late intellectual achievement (similarity 0.83)
• Human moral behavior may originate in mere conformity to convention, not genuine morality. (similarity 0.81)
• Human morality may rest on a general normativizing capacity, not a dedicated fairness module. (similarity 0.81)
• Moral obligations require overriding force that natural selection doesn’t explain (similarity 0.80)
• Moral capacity arises socially but not from societal institutions (similarity 0.80)
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.80)
• People feel moral obligations they never actually agreed to. (similarity 0.79)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.79)
• A genuine moral sense evolved to secure reputation as a cooperator (similarity 0.78)
• Morality extends beyond fairness among strangers to relational obligations (similarity 0.78)
• Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.78)
• Conscience evolved to supply immediate rewards that bridge the gap to future moral payoffs (similarity 0.78)
• Moral consistency can be learned rule-following rather than an innate disposition (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Morality resembles a self-enforcing contract between present and future selves. #expands (0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 231
• Interests crystallize into perceived moral commitments through psychological supervenience. #expands (0.80)
• Egoistic motivations alone cannot sustain cooperation without plausible self-regulating structures #complicates (0.75)