Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-shngb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T18:00:09.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The puritanical moral contract: Purity, cooperation, and the architecture of the moral mind

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2023

Léo Fitouchi Open the ORCID record for Léo Fitouchi [Opens in a new window] ,
Jean-Baptiste André  and
Nicolas Baumard
Léo Fitouchi
Affiliation:
Département d’études cognitives, Institut Jean Nicod, École normale supérieure, Université PSL, EHESS, CNRS, Paris, France leo.fitouchi@gmail.com; https://sites.google.com/view/leofitouchi/home jeanbatptisteandre@gmail.com; http://jb.homepage.free.fr/ nbaumard@gmail.com; https://nicolasbaumards.org/
Jean-Baptiste André
Affiliation:
Département d’études cognitives, Institut Jean Nicod, École normale supérieure, Université PSL, EHESS, CNRS, Paris, France leo.fitouchi@gmail.com; https://sites.google.com/view/leofitouchi/home jeanbatptisteandre@gmail.com; http://jb.homepage.free.fr/ nbaumard@gmail.com; https://nicolasbaumards.org/
Nicolas Baumard
Affiliation:
Département d’études cognitives, Institut Jean Nicod, École normale supérieure, Université PSL, EHESS, CNRS, Paris, France leo.fitouchi@gmail.com; https://sites.google.com/view/leofitouchi/home jeanbatptisteandre@gmail.com; http://jb.homepage.free.fr/ nbaumard@gmail.com; https://nicolasbaumards.org/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commentators raise fundamental questions about the notion of purity (sect. R1), the architecture of moral cognition (sect. R2), the functional relationship between morality and cooperation (sect. R3), the role of folk-theories of self-control in moral judgment (sect. R4), and the cultural variation of morality (sect. R5). In our response, we address all these issues by clarifying our theory of puritanism, responding to counter-arguments, and incorporating welcome corrections and extensions.

Information

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e322
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Co-last authors.

References

André, J.-B., Fitouchi, L., Debove, S., & Baumard, N. (2022). An evolutionary contractualist theory of morality. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2hxguCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barclay, P., & Raihani, N. (2016). Partner choice versus punishment in human Prisoner's Dilemmas. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(4), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumard, N., André, J.-B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (2021). The sweet spot: The pleasures of suffering and the search for meaning. HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Boehm, C. (2012). Moral origins: The evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Boyer, P., Firat, R., & van Leeuwen, F. (2015). Safety, threat, and stress in intergroup relations: A coalitional index model. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 434–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bremer, F. J. (2009). Puritanism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2021). Bad men: The hidden roots of sexual deception, harassment and assault. Hachette UK.Google Scholar
Clifford, S., Iyengar, V., Cabeza, R., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015). Moral foundations vignettes: A standardized stimulus database of scenarios based on moral foundations theory. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1178–1198. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0551-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crone, D. (2022). Conceptual issues with the moral foundation of purity: The case of religion. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3e8bvCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as cooperation: A problem-centred approach. In Shackelford, T. K. & Hansen, R. D. (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 27–51). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabhoiwala, F. (2012). The origins of sex: A history of the first sexual revolution. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R., & Krebs, J. R. (1978). Animal signals: Information or manipulation? In Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B. (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 282–309). Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
DeScioli, P. (2023). On the origin of laws by natural selection. Evolution and Human Behavior, S1090513823000041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.01.004Google Scholar
DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009). Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112(2), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dungan, J., Chakroff, A., & Young, L. (2017). The relevance of moral norms in distinct relational contexts: Purity versus harm norms regulate self-directed actions. PLoS ONE, 12, e0173405. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitouchi, L., André, J.-B., & Baumard, N. (2022a). From supernatural punishment to big gods to puritanical religions: Clarifying explanatory targets in the rise of moralizing religions. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 13(2), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2065352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitouchi, L., André, J.-B., & Baumard, N. (in press). Are there really so many moral emotions? Carving morality at its functional joints. In Al-Shawaf, L. & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolution and the emotions. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fitouchi, L., André, J.-B., Baumard, N., & Nettle, D. (2022b). Harmless bodily pleasures are moralized because they are perceived as reducing self-control and cooperativeness. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fzv43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitouchi, L., & Singh, M. (2023). Punitive justice serves to restore reciprocal cooperation in three small-scale societies. Evolution and Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaca, K. L. (2003). The making of fornication: Eros, ethics, and political reform in Greek philosophy and early Christianity. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Glowacki, L., & von Rueden, C. (2015). Leadership solves collective action problems in small-scale societies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goenka, S., & Thomas, M. (2022). When is sensory consumption immoral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000450Google ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Moral character in person perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414550709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., & Mooijman, M. (2018). Moral foundations theory. In Gray, K. & Graham, J. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 211–223). Guilford.Google Scholar
Gray, K., DiMaggio, N., Schein, C., & Kachanoff, F. (2022). The problem of purity in moral psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221124741Google ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., & Keeney, J. E. (2015). Impure or just weird? Scenario sampling bias raises questions about the foundation of morality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 859–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615592241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, K., & Schein, C. (2016). No absolutism here: Harm predicts moral judgment 30× better than disgust – Commentary on Scott, Inbar, & Rozin (2016). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, D. F., & Bystryn, M. H. (1982). Christian intolerance of homosexuality. American Journal of Sociology, 88(3), 515–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagen, E. H., & Garfield, Z. (2019). Leadership and prestige, mothering, sexual selection, and encephalization: The computational services model [preprint]. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9bcdkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Knopf Doubleday.Google Scholar
Hall, D. D. (2012). A reforming people: Puritanism and the transformation of public life in New England. UNC Press Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, S., Herman, R. A., Nolan, C. L., & Wallen, K. (2004). Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 7(4), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hechter, M. (1988). Principles of group solidarity (1. paperback printing). University of California Press.Google Scholar
Inzlicht, M., Shenhav, A., & Olivola, C. (2018). The effort paradox: Effort is both costly and valued. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, E., & Nettle, D. (2020). Fairness, generosity and conditionality in the welfare system: The case of UK disability benefits. Global Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1332/204378920X15989751152011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayyal, M. H., Pochedly, J., McCarthy, A., & Russell, J. A. (2015). On the limits of the relation of disgust to judgments of immorality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00951CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kollareth, D., Brownell, H., Duran, J. I., & Russell, J. A. (2022). Is purity a distinct and homogeneous domain in moral psychology? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(1), 211–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landy, J., & Piazza, J. (2017). Reevaluating moral disgust: Sensitivity to many affective states predicts extremity in many evaluative judgments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 194855061773611. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617736110Google Scholar
Le Goff, J. (1984). Le refus du plaisir in L'amour et la sexualité: Vol. Amour et Sexualité en Occident (pp. 52–59). Points Histoire.Google Scholar
Levine, S., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Schulz, L., Tenenbaum, J., & Cushman, F. (2020). The logic of universalization guides moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(42), 26158–26169. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014505117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. L. (2009). Alcohol, violence, and disorder in traditional Europe. Truman State University Press.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. K. (2002). Controlling Misbehavior in England, 1370–1600. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merrill, L. T. (1945). The puritan policeman. American Sociological Review, 10(6), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.2307/2085847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molleman, L., Kölle, F., Starmer, C., & Gächter, S. (2019). People prefer coordinated punishment in cooperative interactions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(11), 1145–1153. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0707-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooijman, M., Meindl, P., Oyserman, D., Monterosso, J., Dehghani, M., Doris, J. M., & Graham, J. (2018). Resisting temptation for the good of the group: Binding moral values and the moralization of self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, J. W., Wongsomboon, V., & Sevi, B. (2021). Beliefs about men's sexual self-control predict attitudes toward women's immodest clothing and public breastfeeding [preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/67vh9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, D., & Saxe, R. (2021). “If men were angels, no government would be necessary”: The intuitive theory of social motivation and preference for authoritarian leaders. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 28105. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.28105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piazza, J., Landy, J. F., Chakroff, A., Young, L., & Wasserman, E. (2018). What disgust does and does not do for moral cognition. In Strohminger, N. & Kumar, V. (Eds.), The moral psychology of disgust (pp. 53–81). Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pietraszewski, D., Curry, O. S., Petersen, M. B., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2015). Constituents of political cognition: Race, party politics, and the alliance detection system. Cognition, 140, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piff, P. K., Wiwad, D., Robinson, A. R., Aknin, L. B., Mercier, B., & Shariff, A. (2020). Shifting attributions for poverty motivates opposition to inequality and enhances egalitarianism. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0835-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, M. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2015). The service-for-prestige theory of leader-follower relations: A review of the evolutionary psychology and anthropology literatures. In Colarelli, S. M. & Arvey, R. D. (Eds.), Biological foundations of organizational behavior (pp. 397–477). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Royzman, E. B., & Borislow, S. H. (2022). The puzzle of wrongless harms: Some potential concerns for dyadic morality and related accounts. Cognition, 220, 104980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104980CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royzman, E. B., Kim, K., & Leeman, R. F. (2015). The curious tale of Julie and Mark: Unraveling the moral dumbfounding effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(4), 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royzman, E. B., Leeman, R. F., & Baron, J. (2009). Unsentimental ethics: Towards a content-specific account of the moral–conventional distinction. Cognition, 112(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.04.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saxe, R. (2022). Perceiving and pursuing legitimate power. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(12), 1062–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.08.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scanlon, T. (2000). What we owe to each other. Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, C., Ritter, R. S., & Gray, K. (2016). Harm mediates the disgust–immorality link. Emotion, 16(6), 862–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidman, S. (1990). The power of desire and the danger of pleasure: Victorian sexuality reconsidered. Journal of Social History, 24(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh/24.1.47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shweder, R. A. (2012). Relativism and universalism. In Fassin, D. (Ed.), A companion to moral anthropology (pp. 85–102). Willey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M. (2021). Magic, explanations, and evil: The origins and design of witches and sorcerers. Current Anthropology, 62(1), 2–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/713111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. M., & Parker, G. A. (1976). The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour, 24(1), 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. M., & Kurzban, R. (2019). Morality is not always good. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 61–62.Google Scholar
Starmans, C., & Bloom, P. (2016). When the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak: Developmental differences in judgments about inner moral conflict. Psychological Science, 27(11), 1498–1506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616665813CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suiming, P. (1998). The move toward spiritual asceticism in Chinese sexual culture. Chinese Sociology & Anthropology, 31(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.2753/CSA0009-4625310114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R., Yuki, M., Talhelm, T., Schug, J., Kito, M., Ayanian, A. H., … Visserman, M. L. (2018). Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(29), 7521–7526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713191115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2020). The moral psychology of obligation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19001742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., & Price, M. (2006). Cognitive adaptations for N-person exchange: The evolutionary roots of organizational behavior. Managerial and Decision Economics: MDE, 27, 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S. F., Hart, C. M., & De Cremer, D. (2004). Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00061-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Rueden, C. R., Gurven, M., & Guala, F. (2012). When the strong punish: Why net costs of punishment are often negligible. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(1), 43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed