What does fairness mean and what is the meaning of being fair? Baumard et al. explain the how and why of human morality through an appeal to mutualism, the theory that social selection led to a moral disposition for fair-minded behavior. We applaud the work for its careful consideration of cross-cultural research and its recognition that reputation, entitlement, and ownership are important factors in individuals' distributive acts. However, it is questionable whether the essence of morality can be captured by an evolutionary account, regardless of the degree of its simulation fitness.
The naturalistic account proposed by the authors equates fairness to a “genuine moral sense” (sect. 2.2.1, para. 8) that is essentially reduced to proportionally based resource distribution, which itself appears to presuppose a “missing contract” (i.e., acting as if there is a pre-established agreement). Let us first say that it is hard here not to smell circularity since a contract, whether implicit, explicit, or based on pretense (i.e., as if agreement), does seem to presuppose some sense of fairness. Any market in which reputation and partner choice would be relevant does indeed presuppose the kinds of moral intuitions about fairness that the authors aim to explain. So we are left with the question of which comes first and what might be the causal connection.
In addition, and even if one overlooks the circularity problem, this reduction does not do justice to the domain of morality that is much more than fairness in resource distribution. Morality encompasses also the basic issues of moral identity, the relationship between moral judgment and action, perspective-taking, and empathy, as well as potential intuitions about purity, hierarchy, and harm (Haidt Reference Haidt2007). Therefore, the interchangeable use of morality as fairness is too narrow. Most of what pertains to morality is in essence not exchangeable and, at least at first glance, cannot simply be derived from the market dynamic metaphor proposed by the authors. As Prinz (Reference Prinz and Sinnott-Armstrong2007) observes, the “essence of morality” does not follow directly from its origins. To account for the likely process by which humans became moral does not account for what being moral actually means and entails. The naturalist account still begs the question. So how do we escape such limitations? As developmental psychologists, we propose that this can be done by looking at morality as it unfolds in ontogeny.
In truth, to address the basic question raised by the target article (“What makes humans moral beings?”) is to resolve the problem of how one transcends mere conventionality. Indeed, one could argue that mutualism does not either derive from, or give rise to, morality. Instead, it might simply derive from, or give rise to, a sense of convention. In this “conventionalist” account, it is not morality proper that would be linked to mutualism but conventionality or the sense, perception, and ultimately submission of individuals to the recognition of collective ways of being. The product of natural selection would be conformists rather than moralists. In this account, moral values would derive from conventions, and this is evident by looking at children in their development.
Abundant research shows that children are born first conventional and slowly develop to become autonomous moral agents (see the studies done by Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg). What infants are born with is a sensitivity for how things appear to be done in their social surroundings. Very early on, infants detect patterns in the way people behave with one another and react with surprise when these patterns are transgressed. For example, young infants detect when a protagonist hinders rather than helps another, or defies expected physical dominance (Hamlin et al. Reference Hamlin, Wynn and Bloom2007; Thomsen et al. Reference Thomsen, Frankenhuis, Ingold-Smith and Carey2011). This, we would argue, can all be derived from majority patterns of social interactions, eventually becoming perceived norms that can be uncannily transgressed. We would be hard pressed to equate such responses with morality or fairness proper. To become moral, such responses and implicit norms need to be re-described by each child in his or her development.
As a case in point, in a series of experiments we showed that it is only by 5 years that children adopt what we coined an “ethical” or principled stance toward unfair others. They start inhibiting their inclination to self-maximize resources, resist conforming to a partner's way of sharing, and engage in costly punishment, what can be equated to strong reciprocity (Robbins & Rochat Reference Robbins and Rochat2011). Prior to 5 years, children are relatively insensitive to proportional distribution and do not seem to factor this in their determinations about which acts are fair or nice (McCrink et al. Reference McCrink, Bloom and Santos2010, but see Hook & Cook [Reference Hook and Cook1979] for an early review). Such findings, among many others, demonstrate that the essence of morality is revealed in the development that is instantiated by each child and made of complex tensions that are of internal and external origins.
Furthermore, children become explicitly moral not only to resolve conflicts of ownership and entitlements over resources, but also – and one could argue primarily – to resolve internal tensions between immediate gratification or self-maximizing greed, and to maintain one's moral identity and reputation that is painstakingly managed and projected to the outside world. We want to insist that there is a fundamental ego function underlying morality that cannot be overlooked when thinking about the proximate mechanism of its emergence and formation. Morality could as well arise from self-consciousness, the need for internal consistency (self-regard, integrity, or moral reconciliation and centrality; see Frimer & Walker Reference Frimer and Walker2008), and/or the adoption of a particular perspective in moral space (Taylor Reference Taylor1989).
To conclude, universal and arguably unique to our species is the fact that individuals work hard at constructing their own moral identity. They may change values and develop new ones in ways that vary within and between groups. These important dimensions of morality tend to be blurred at the scale of evolution and population selection and cannot be overlooked. Children in their development reveal that much more complex mechanisms underlie morality, and thereby illuminate the basic question of what makes humans moral beings.
You have
Access
What does fairness mean and what is the meaning of being fair? Baumard et al. explain the how and why of human morality through an appeal to mutualism, the theory that social selection led to a moral disposition for fair-minded behavior. We applaud the work for its careful consideration of cross-cultural research and its recognition that reputation, entitlement, and ownership are important factors in individuals' distributive acts. However, it is questionable whether the essence of morality can be captured by an evolutionary account, regardless of the degree of its simulation fitness.
The naturalistic account proposed by the authors equates fairness to a “genuine moral sense” (sect. 2.2.1, para. 8) that is essentially reduced to proportionally based resource distribution, which itself appears to presuppose a “missing contract” (i.e., acting as if there is a pre-established agreement). Let us first say that it is hard here not to smell circularity since a contract, whether implicit, explicit, or based on pretense (i.e., as if agreement), does seem to presuppose some sense of fairness. Any market in which reputation and partner choice would be relevant does indeed presuppose the kinds of moral intuitions about fairness that the authors aim to explain. So we are left with the question of which comes first and what might be the causal connection.
In addition, and even if one overlooks the circularity problem, this reduction does not do justice to the domain of morality that is much more than fairness in resource distribution. Morality encompasses also the basic issues of moral identity, the relationship between moral judgment and action, perspective-taking, and empathy, as well as potential intuitions about purity, hierarchy, and harm (Haidt Reference Haidt2007). Therefore, the interchangeable use of morality as fairness is too narrow. Most of what pertains to morality is in essence not exchangeable and, at least at first glance, cannot simply be derived from the market dynamic metaphor proposed by the authors. As Prinz (Reference Prinz and Sinnott-Armstrong2007) observes, the “essence of morality” does not follow directly from its origins. To account for the likely process by which humans became moral does not account for what being moral actually means and entails. The naturalist account still begs the question. So how do we escape such limitations? As developmental psychologists, we propose that this can be done by looking at morality as it unfolds in ontogeny.
In truth, to address the basic question raised by the target article (“What makes humans moral beings?”) is to resolve the problem of how one transcends mere conventionality. Indeed, one could argue that mutualism does not either derive from, or give rise to, morality. Instead, it might simply derive from, or give rise to, a sense of convention. In this “conventionalist” account, it is not morality proper that would be linked to mutualism but conventionality or the sense, perception, and ultimately submission of individuals to the recognition of collective ways of being. The product of natural selection would be conformists rather than moralists. In this account, moral values would derive from conventions, and this is evident by looking at children in their development.
Abundant research shows that children are born first conventional and slowly develop to become autonomous moral agents (see the studies done by Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg). What infants are born with is a sensitivity for how things appear to be done in their social surroundings. Very early on, infants detect patterns in the way people behave with one another and react with surprise when these patterns are transgressed. For example, young infants detect when a protagonist hinders rather than helps another, or defies expected physical dominance (Hamlin et al. Reference Hamlin, Wynn and Bloom2007; Thomsen et al. Reference Thomsen, Frankenhuis, Ingold-Smith and Carey2011). This, we would argue, can all be derived from majority patterns of social interactions, eventually becoming perceived norms that can be uncannily transgressed. We would be hard pressed to equate such responses with morality or fairness proper. To become moral, such responses and implicit norms need to be re-described by each child in his or her development.
As a case in point, in a series of experiments we showed that it is only by 5 years that children adopt what we coined an “ethical” or principled stance toward unfair others. They start inhibiting their inclination to self-maximize resources, resist conforming to a partner's way of sharing, and engage in costly punishment, what can be equated to strong reciprocity (Robbins & Rochat Reference Robbins and Rochat2011). Prior to 5 years, children are relatively insensitive to proportional distribution and do not seem to factor this in their determinations about which acts are fair or nice (McCrink et al. Reference McCrink, Bloom and Santos2010, but see Hook & Cook [Reference Hook and Cook1979] for an early review). Such findings, among many others, demonstrate that the essence of morality is revealed in the development that is instantiated by each child and made of complex tensions that are of internal and external origins.
Furthermore, children become explicitly moral not only to resolve conflicts of ownership and entitlements over resources, but also – and one could argue primarily – to resolve internal tensions between immediate gratification or self-maximizing greed, and to maintain one's moral identity and reputation that is painstakingly managed and projected to the outside world. We want to insist that there is a fundamental ego function underlying morality that cannot be overlooked when thinking about the proximate mechanism of its emergence and formation. Morality could as well arise from self-consciousness, the need for internal consistency (self-regard, integrity, or moral reconciliation and centrality; see Frimer & Walker Reference Frimer and Walker2008), and/or the adoption of a particular perspective in moral space (Taylor Reference Taylor1989).
To conclude, universal and arguably unique to our species is the fact that individuals work hard at constructing their own moral identity. They may change values and develop new ones in ways that vary within and between groups. These important dimensions of morality tend to be blurred at the scale of evolution and population selection and cannot be overlooked. Children in their development reveal that much more complex mechanisms underlie morality, and thereby illuminate the basic question of what makes humans moral beings.