Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 February 2013
Baumard et al. mischaracterize our model of individual and social choice behavior. We model individuals who maximize preferences given their beliefs, and subject to their informational and material constraints (Fehr & Gintis 2007). Individuals thus must make trade-offs among self-regarding, other-regarding, and character virtue goals. Two genetic predispositions are particularly crucial. The first is strong reciprocity. The second is the capacity to internalize norms through the socialization process. Our model includes the authors' model as a subset.
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