The system of mutualistic cooperation described in Baumard et al. may be a convincing portrayal of many modern, mobile, and largely individualistic societies. However, in describing the evolution of morality in more traditional and hierarchically structured cultural groups, a system that relies on equitable distribution of rewards based on individual effort and investment seems less plausible. Throughout the course of human history, societies have often been structured hierarchically where those at the bottom give considerably more to those on the top without reaping the reward of their contribution. These kinds of societal systems are often based on a shared sense of duty and obligation, resulting in a culturally evolved norm of fairness which has very little to do with mutual gain (Miller Reference Miller1994; Moghaddam et al. Reference Moghaddam, Slocum, Finkel, Mor and Harre2000). Instead, a notion of fulfilling one's role or position may be an important motivator. A similar sense of duty can be observed in cultural institutions today (e.g., military groups and feudal societies). We propose that in such cultures, sacrifice, or something akin to what the authors might call altruistic cooperation, becomes a culturally held moral value (Sachdeva Reference Sachdeva2010).
Previous work has revealed systematic cultural differences in the prevalence of duty-based moral codes which might embody ideals of sacrifice versus rights-based moral codes where equality and mutual reciprocation might be idealized. For example, collectivistic cultures or those where the self is defined interdependently (e.g., groups with low socioeconomic status [SES], East Asians) are more likely to emphasize duties and obligations (Oyserman et al. Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002). Duties in these contexts tend to be hierarchical, deeply contextualized, and set in relations between persons. They are also obligatory, making personal preferences and motivations less meaningful. In these societal systems, the sense of morality is not based in ideals of fairness and equality but develops as the result of certain types of duties being impressed onto individuals – and an accompanying sense of responsibility (Shweder Reference Shweder, Jessor, Colby and Shweder1996).
One implication of a duty-based system is that give-and-take, contrary to Baumard et al.'s suggestion, is not proportional. Often, transactions transpire such that one side gives disproportionately more to the other, usually more powerful, side (Moghaddam et al. Reference Moghaddam, Slocum, Finkel, Mor and Harre2000). Feudal systems or other explicitly hierarchical social systems are a good example of asymmetric exchange (Anderson Reference Anderson1974). Members of duty-based societies are also expected to fulfill a wider range of moralized social obligations ranging from the minor (e.g., giving a friend an aspirin) to the extreme (e.g., saving someone's life). In one study, for example, Miller and Bersoff (Reference Miller and Bersoff1992) showed that Indian participants, thought to hold duty-based moral codes, believed it was morally obligatory to deliver a friend's wedding ring, even if it meant risking jail time by stealing the necessary resources to do so. In all of these situations, the role of the individual is minimized and the maintenance of societal norms and conventions is primary (Shweder et al. Reference Shweder, Mahapatra, Miller, Kagan and Lamb1987).
It seems plausible, then, that the type of self-effacing behavior observed in duty-based moral codes would acquire a moral nature. Sacrifice, altruistic cooperation, or prosocial behavior performed at great cost to the self would come to be seen as an unequivocal moral good. To investigate cultural beliefs surrounding duties and sacrifice, we coded over a hundred Indian and American folktales. As a rich repository of cultural values, folktales and other similar cultural products serve an important function of diffusing and maintaining some level of homogeneity within a cultural group. Furthermore, evidence suggests that folktales and fables were an especially important medium of transferring a system of duties through generations in Indian villages (O'Flaherty & Derrett Reference O'Flaherty and Derrett1978). We found that duties or themes surrounding obligations were more prevalent in Indian stories than in American stories. But, more significantly, the presence of duties in a story was a significant predictor of whether the story discussed acts of sacrifice or altruistic cooperation (Sachdeva Reference Sachdeva2010). The more a story mentioned upholding one's obligations, the more likely it was that it also contained an act of self-sacrifice. This relationship between duties and sacrifice was stronger in Indian folktales than in American ones.
In field studies, we have asked rural and urban Indians about their ideas of sacrifice. We have consistently found that rural Indians prefer sacrifice as a means to a prosocial outcome, even when it comes at a disproportionately great cost to the self. Urban Indians and Americans show no such preference. In one scenario, rural Indian participants were willing to give up even their lives to save a highly valued police commissioner, whereas urban Indians and Americans would accept only a relatively minor cost to themselves to save the commissioner's life (Sachdeva Reference Sachdeva2010). Urban Indians and American participants were sensitive to the cost of a moral action, but rural participants were not.
In a second study, we asked participants to jointly evaluate two prosocial outcomes (e.g., saving the life of an innocent child). The scenarios were presented side by side as newspaper articles. The only difference was that in one article, the child's life was saved at a great cost to the actor, whereas the other made no mention of this. Again, rural Indian participants showed a preference for sacrificial acts and thought the actor who suffered was more praiseworthy. The other two groups did not differentiate between the two actors. The urban Indian and American responses are consistent with Baumard et al.'s perspective on mutual cooperation – these groups are willing to give up something but expect some type of social security in return. However, mutualism cannot explain the consistent approval of self-sacrifice observed in rural, agrarian communities in India.
We believe that morality in some societies is better represented by relying on a system of duties. Although we discuss data from one community, duty-based moral systems seem to be widespread and might even be a precursor to a moral system based on rights. We propose that mutualistic cooperation as described by Baumard et al. matches a rights-based orientation more than it does a duty-based one.
You have
Access
The system of mutualistic cooperation described in Baumard et al. may be a convincing portrayal of many modern, mobile, and largely individualistic societies. However, in describing the evolution of morality in more traditional and hierarchically structured cultural groups, a system that relies on equitable distribution of rewards based on individual effort and investment seems less plausible. Throughout the course of human history, societies have often been structured hierarchically where those at the bottom give considerably more to those on the top without reaping the reward of their contribution. These kinds of societal systems are often based on a shared sense of duty and obligation, resulting in a culturally evolved norm of fairness which has very little to do with mutual gain (Miller Reference Miller1994; Moghaddam et al. Reference Moghaddam, Slocum, Finkel, Mor and Harre2000). Instead, a notion of fulfilling one's role or position may be an important motivator. A similar sense of duty can be observed in cultural institutions today (e.g., military groups and feudal societies). We propose that in such cultures, sacrifice, or something akin to what the authors might call altruistic cooperation, becomes a culturally held moral value (Sachdeva Reference Sachdeva2010).
Previous work has revealed systematic cultural differences in the prevalence of duty-based moral codes which might embody ideals of sacrifice versus rights-based moral codes where equality and mutual reciprocation might be idealized. For example, collectivistic cultures or those where the self is defined interdependently (e.g., groups with low socioeconomic status [SES], East Asians) are more likely to emphasize duties and obligations (Oyserman et al. Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002). Duties in these contexts tend to be hierarchical, deeply contextualized, and set in relations between persons. They are also obligatory, making personal preferences and motivations less meaningful. In these societal systems, the sense of morality is not based in ideals of fairness and equality but develops as the result of certain types of duties being impressed onto individuals – and an accompanying sense of responsibility (Shweder Reference Shweder, Jessor, Colby and Shweder1996).
One implication of a duty-based system is that give-and-take, contrary to Baumard et al.'s suggestion, is not proportional. Often, transactions transpire such that one side gives disproportionately more to the other, usually more powerful, side (Moghaddam et al. Reference Moghaddam, Slocum, Finkel, Mor and Harre2000). Feudal systems or other explicitly hierarchical social systems are a good example of asymmetric exchange (Anderson Reference Anderson1974). Members of duty-based societies are also expected to fulfill a wider range of moralized social obligations ranging from the minor (e.g., giving a friend an aspirin) to the extreme (e.g., saving someone's life). In one study, for example, Miller and Bersoff (Reference Miller and Bersoff1992) showed that Indian participants, thought to hold duty-based moral codes, believed it was morally obligatory to deliver a friend's wedding ring, even if it meant risking jail time by stealing the necessary resources to do so. In all of these situations, the role of the individual is minimized and the maintenance of societal norms and conventions is primary (Shweder et al. Reference Shweder, Mahapatra, Miller, Kagan and Lamb1987).
It seems plausible, then, that the type of self-effacing behavior observed in duty-based moral codes would acquire a moral nature. Sacrifice, altruistic cooperation, or prosocial behavior performed at great cost to the self would come to be seen as an unequivocal moral good. To investigate cultural beliefs surrounding duties and sacrifice, we coded over a hundred Indian and American folktales. As a rich repository of cultural values, folktales and other similar cultural products serve an important function of diffusing and maintaining some level of homogeneity within a cultural group. Furthermore, evidence suggests that folktales and fables were an especially important medium of transferring a system of duties through generations in Indian villages (O'Flaherty & Derrett Reference O'Flaherty and Derrett1978). We found that duties or themes surrounding obligations were more prevalent in Indian stories than in American stories. But, more significantly, the presence of duties in a story was a significant predictor of whether the story discussed acts of sacrifice or altruistic cooperation (Sachdeva Reference Sachdeva2010). The more a story mentioned upholding one's obligations, the more likely it was that it also contained an act of self-sacrifice. This relationship between duties and sacrifice was stronger in Indian folktales than in American ones.
In field studies, we have asked rural and urban Indians about their ideas of sacrifice. We have consistently found that rural Indians prefer sacrifice as a means to a prosocial outcome, even when it comes at a disproportionately great cost to the self. Urban Indians and Americans show no such preference. In one scenario, rural Indian participants were willing to give up even their lives to save a highly valued police commissioner, whereas urban Indians and Americans would accept only a relatively minor cost to themselves to save the commissioner's life (Sachdeva Reference Sachdeva2010). Urban Indians and American participants were sensitive to the cost of a moral action, but rural participants were not.
In a second study, we asked participants to jointly evaluate two prosocial outcomes (e.g., saving the life of an innocent child). The scenarios were presented side by side as newspaper articles. The only difference was that in one article, the child's life was saved at a great cost to the actor, whereas the other made no mention of this. Again, rural Indian participants showed a preference for sacrificial acts and thought the actor who suffered was more praiseworthy. The other two groups did not differentiate between the two actors. The urban Indian and American responses are consistent with Baumard et al.'s perspective on mutual cooperation – these groups are willing to give up something but expect some type of social security in return. However, mutualism cannot explain the consistent approval of self-sacrifice observed in rural, agrarian communities in India.
We believe that morality in some societies is better represented by relying on a system of duties. Although we discuss data from one community, duty-based moral systems seem to be widespread and might even be a precursor to a moral system based on rights. We propose that mutualistic cooperation as described by Baumard et al. matches a rights-based orientation more than it does a duty-based one.