Abstract
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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 98-99 |
Number of pages | 2 |
Journal | Behavioral and Brain Sciences |
Volume | 36 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2013 |