Partner-choice cooperation theory does not explain the intrinsic moral sense.
Evidence
The mutualistic approach provides a straightforward explanation of why people should strive to be good partners in cooperation and respect the rights of others: If they failed to do so, they would incur the risk of being left out of future cooperative ventures. On the other hand, the theory of social selection as stated so far says very little about the proximal psychological mechanisms that are involved in helping individuals compete to be selected as partners in cooperation. In particular, the theory does not by itself explain why humans have a moral sense, why they feel guilty when they steal from others, and why they feel outraged when others are treated unfairly (Fessler & Haley 2003). — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 56
Categorization
- QUESTION: The gap named here — why a moral sense exists beyond instrumental cooperativeness — is the theoretical problem the fumi-e becomes meaningful against: forcing public apostasy targets exactly the intrinsic (not instrumental) moral motivation.
- XREF: connects to: Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 347; Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 567; Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 605 (+1 more)
Related
- Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.89)
- Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.88)
- Partner selection produces genuine moral feelings, not just narrow self-interested cooperation. (similarity 0.87)
- Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. (similarity 0.85)
- Fairness is self-interested because stingy partners get abandoned. (similarity 0.84)
- Morality evolves in two steps, from selfish reciprocity to intrinsic fairness. (similarity 0.84)
- Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.84)
- Partner choice predicts fair cooperation while group selection predicts utilitarian cooperation. (similarity 0.84)
- Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control (similarity 0.84)
- Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.83)
- Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.83)
- Partner choice selects among folk-theorem equilibria just as group selection does. (similarity 0.82)
- Partner choice theory shifts cooperation research away from dyadic Prisoner’s Dilemma models. (similarity 0.82)
- Cooperation and morality are distinct categories. (similarity 0.82)
- A partner-choice account of morality predicts avoidant emotions dominate moral life (similarity 0.82)