I have finally figured out what bothers me about this model, because I love the concept, but every time I look at it, I get a gut feeling that something isn't right... it over-simplifies human interaction. I'll explain:
In the microcosm you created above, each person has a particular thing they WANT and a particular thing they DON'T. It just so happens, as you go around the circle, that they mesh up quite nicely, but in reality, they don't. A few examples...
I swear as a manner of course, and I feel that giving the word Fuck such power as it has is detremental to language in general. Further, I hate the idea of censoring myself. Person A, with whom I deal on a regular basis.. say the spouse of a close friend... abhors bad language. In that case, I have to make one of a series of choices that will be distasteful to one or the other of us. One of us is going to be forced to go against their "morality". Either I am going to self censor, she is going to hear bad language, or I am going to avoid her, which is really just an alternate form of self censorship.
or
Hypothetically, I have a spouse or girlfriend with whom I participate in a strongly S&M based relationship. We are involved in this to such a degree that, in public, I might spank her for being 'bad' or speak to her in terms that others would find derogatory. Feminists would foam at the mouth, gentle souls would blanche. Now, at a public party, there are some people there whose personal morals don't allow them to see such treatment of women go unchecked. The significant other is willingly involved in the situation.
Which party's morals should get ignored? Who chooses? Why?
Even something as simple as the exchange of social capital alters the involvement, because part of "how we want to be treated" is to not be punished for acting within our moral guidelines. If it is perfectly acceptable, within my moral guidelines, to have sexual relationships with men... why is it acceptable to be ostracised by another for that? Conversely, if it is within someone's moral guidelines to have sexual relationships with *boys*, why isn't it acceptable to ostracise them for that?
I would have to impose my morality on another in order to achieve my desired objective using social capital.
I'm not saying that there is an alpha-male-monkey. What I am saying is that the no-central-morality model that you describe above is too simple to work almost any of the time in groups larger than about 5 likeminded individuals. Hell, it barely works in three person polyamorous relationships.
no subject
In the microcosm you created above, each person has a particular thing they WANT and a particular thing they DON'T. It just so happens, as you go around the circle, that they mesh up quite nicely, but in reality, they don't. A few examples...or
Even something as simple as the exchange of social capital alters the involvement, because part of "how we want to be treated" is to not be punished for acting within our moral guidelines. If it is perfectly acceptable, within my moral guidelines, to have sexual relationships with men... why is it acceptable to be ostracised by another for that? Conversely, if it is within someone's moral guidelines to have sexual relationships with *boys*, why isn't it acceptable to ostracise them for that?
I would have to impose my morality on another in order to achieve my desired objective using social capital.
I'm not saying that there is an alpha-male-monkey. What I am saying is that the no-central-morality model that you describe above is too simple to work almost any of the time in groups larger than about 5 likeminded individuals. Hell, it barely works in three person polyamorous relationships.