Literature DB >> 23445574

A mutualistic approach to morality: the evolution of fairness by partner choice.

Nicolas Baumard1, Jean-Baptiste André, Dan Sperber.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23445574     DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X11002202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Brain Sci        ISSN: 0140-525X            Impact factor:   12.579


  66 in total

1.  When injustice is at stake, moral judgements are not parochial.

Authors:  Jared Piazza; Paulo Sousa
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-01-27       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Uncalculating cooperation is used to signal trustworthiness.

Authors:  Jillian J Jordan; Moshe Hoffman; Martin A Nowak; David G Rand
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Human children but not chimpanzees make irrational decisions driven by social comparison.

Authors:  Esther Herrmann; Lou M Haux; Henriette Zeidler; Jan M Engelmann
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Infants possess an abstract expectation of ingroup support.

Authors:  Kyong-Sun Jin; Renée Baillargeon
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness.

Authors:  Daniel Sznycer; Maria Florencia Lopez Seal; Aaron Sell; Julian Lim; Roni Porat; Shaul Shalvi; Eran Halperin; Leda Cosmides; John Tooby
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Partner choice creates fairness in humans.

Authors:  Stéphane Debove; Jean-Baptiste André; Nicolas Baumard
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-06-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 7.  The nature and dynamics of world religions: a life-history approach.

Authors:  Nicolas Baumard; Coralie Chevallier
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  The evolution of fairness through spite.

Authors:  Patrick Forber; Rory Smead
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness.

Authors:  Jillian J Jordan; Moshe Hoffman; Paul Bloom; David G Rand
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Me first: Neural representations of fairness during three-party interactions.

Authors:  Keith J Yoder; Jean Decety
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.