We applaud Baumard et al.’s mutualistic account of morality but detect circularity in their articulation of how morality emerged. Contra the authors, we propose that mutualism might account for a sensitivity to convention (the ways things are done within a group) rather than for a sense of fairness. An ontogenetic perspective better captures the complexity of what it means to be moral.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000854 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!