Article contents
A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 February 2013
Abstract
What makes humans moral beings? This question can be understood either as a proximate “how” question or as an ultimate “why” question. The “how” question is about the mental and social mechanisms that produce moral judgments and interactions, and has been investigated by psychologists and social scientists. The “why” question is about the fitness consequences that explain why humans have morality, and has been discussed by evolutionary biologists in the context of the evolution of cooperation. Our goal here is to contribute to a fruitful articulation of such proximate and ultimate explanations of human morality. We develop an approach to morality as an adaptation to an environment in which individuals were in competition to be chosen and recruited in mutually advantageous cooperative interactions. In this environment, the best strategy is to treat others with impartiality and to share the costs and benefits of cooperation equally. Those who offer less than others will be left out of cooperation; conversely, those who offer more will be exploited by their partners. In line with this mutualistic approach, the study of a range of economic games involving property rights, collective actions, mutual help and punishment shows that participants' distributions aim at sharing the costs and benefits of interactions in an impartial way. In particular, the distribution of resources is influenced by effort and talent, and the perception of each participant's rights on the resources to be distributed.
- Type
- Target Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013
References
- 353
- Cited by
Target article
A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice
Related commentaries (28)
A strange(r) analysis of morality: A consideration of relational context and the broader literature is needed
Bargaining power and the evolution of un-fair, non-mutualistic moral norms
Baumard et al.'s moral markets lack market dynamics
Beyond economic games: A mutualistic approach to the rest of moral life
Biological evolution and behavioral evolution: Two approaches to altruism
Can mutualistic morality predict how individuals deal with benefits they did not deserve?
Competitive morality
Cooperation and fairness depend on self-regulation
Disentangling the sense of ownership from the sense of fairness
Does market competition explain fairness?
Ego function of morality and developing tensions that are “within”
Evidence for partner choice in toddlers: Considering the breadth of other-oriented behaviours
From mutualism to moral transcendence
From partner choice to equity – and beyond?
Heterogeneity in fairness views: A challenge to the mutualistic approach?
Intertemporal bargaining predicts moral behavior, even in anonymous, one-shot economic games1
Modeling justice as a natural phenomenon
More to morality than mutualism: Consistent contributors exist and they can inspire costly generosity in others
Mutualism is only a part of human morality
Non-mutualistic morality
Not all mutualism is fair, and not all fairness is mutualistic
Partner selection, coordination games, and group selection
Sense of fairness: Not by itself a moral sense and not a foundation of a lot of morality
The emotional shape of our moral life: Anger-related emotions and mutualistic anthropology
The paradox of the missing function: How similar is moral mutualism to biofunctional understanding?
You can't have it both ways: What is the relation between morality and fairness?
Your theory of the evolution of morality depends upon your theory of morality
“Fair” outcomes without morality in cleaner wrasse mutualism
Author response
Partner choice, fairness, and the extension of morality