Natural selection favors both the disposition to reciprocate and to volunteer help proactively.

Evidence

The best partners are thus those who adjust their help to the circumstances so as to always behave in mutually advantageous way. This means that evolution will select not only a disposition to cooperate with others in a mutually advantageous manner, but also a disposition to cooperate with others whenever it is mutually advantageous to do so. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 83

Categorization

• XREF: Feed directly into the reader’s analytical frame: proactive moral duty is what the fumi-e ritual is engineered to break — observable visible apostasy destroys both reactive and proactive cooperation. — connects to: Natural variation among partners drives selection toward greater cooperation. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 619; Competitive altruism permits unconditional giving rather than matched reciprocity — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 530; Reciprocity motivations can be self-reinforcing where further interactions are plentiful (+4 more)
• SEED: The minefield-walking-in-line example (who takes the front turn?) is a clean micro-illustration of proactive mutualistic duty — a usable classroom or essay vignette.

Related

• Morality requires mutual advantage, not strict accounting of reciprocated acts. (similarity 0.86)
• Altruistic cooperators still choose partners they trust and cooperate only where reciprocation is possible. (similarity 0.84)
• Partner selection produces genuine moral feelings, not just narrow self-interested cooperation. (similarity 0.84)
• Morality evolves in two steps, from selfish reciprocity to intrinsic fairness. (similarity 0.82)
• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.82)
• Generalized reciprocity cannot be explained by partner-control mechanisms. (similarity 0.82)
• Cooperation arises from partner choice, not reciprocal tit-for-tat, across species and human development. (similarity 0.81)
• Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.81)
• Natural variation among partners drives selection toward greater cooperation. (similarity 0.80)
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.80)
• Partner choice predicts fair cooperation while group selection predicts utilitarian cooperation. (similarity 0.80)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.80)
• Reciprocal altruism is really mutualism, not altruism (similarity 0.80)
• Competition for partners drives costly reputation-building cooperation. (similarity 0.80)
• Reciprocated cooperation teaches one to internalize others’ interests (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Natural variation among partners drives selection toward greater cooperation. #corroborates (0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 619
• Reciprocity motivations can be self-reinforcing where further interactions are plentiful #corroborates (0.80)
• A genuine moral sense evolved to secure reputation as a cooperator #corroborates (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 67
• Partner selection produces genuine moral feelings, not just narrow self-interested cooperation. #expands (0.78) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 202
• Competitive altruism permits unconditional giving rather than matched reciprocity #qualifies (0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 530
• Reciprocated cooperation teaches one to internalize others’ interests #expands (0.72)
• Moral fairness may itself have been shaped by natural selection. #expands (0.70) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 12