Rights to the product of contribution vanish when the input itself is unfairly acquired.

Evidence

The mutualistic approach thus predicts that people should be fully entitled to the product of their contribution. There are limits to this conclusion, though: If what they bring to others has been stolen from someone, an individual should not remunerate their contribution for it would mean being an accomplice to the theft. More generally, goods acquired in an unfair way do not confer rights over the resources they help to produce. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 155

Categorization

• XREF: This trades on the same distinction between contribution and antecedently fair entitlement that connects to Baumard’s partner-choice model of moral judgment the reader is applying to Father Rodrigues and the fumi-e. — connects to: Proportionality-to-rights accounts of fairness are empirically empty because rights themselves are unconstrained. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 468; Punishment functions as negative redistribution to correct prior unfair gains — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 175

Related

• Punishment functions as negative redistribution to correct prior unfair gains (similarity 0.82)
• Proportionality-to-rights accounts of fairness are empirically empty because rights themselves are unconstrained. (similarity 0.80)
• Contributions carry implicit fairness judgments that trigger blame and counter-blame. (similarity 0.79)
• Fairness judgments track each participant’s earned contribution, not just payoff equality. (similarity 0.79)
• Proportionate punishment mirrors distributive justice in reverse. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Punishment functions as negative redistribution to correct prior unfair gains #corroborates (0.82) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 175