.

Dear Gustavo

Again a great article ! Thank you !

Some reflections …

• The individual expression of the rules (“commandments”) of fostering collaboration is influenced by the environment and the problem(s) at hand. Hence we find this great variety of “this is how we do things around here” a.k.a. “culture”. And no matter how different, these sets of rules are always practical / functional, and help the group(s) to survive (even in the literal sense). And what helps to survive is a vital part of morality. Additionally, these sets of rules (the culture, the morality) stabilise themselves, with the positive effect that the collaborative solution(s) to the problem(s) don’t need to be re-invented again and again. And with the negative effect that these rules can become very rigid.
• Meanwhile, this not only applies to natural environments, but as well to those that we created for ourselves, like organisations, professions, or any other identifiable / categorisable group of people.
• So usually, one person is participating in more than one group, operating in different cultures, under different sets of rules, adhering to different moralities. And sometimes these different sets of rules are more or less compatible, maybe even contradictory, possibly creating conflict for and cognitive dissonance in the individual. The individual then might have to choose their preferred morality (btw, for their own survival).
• Another source of distress might be the change of the environment or the problem(s) at hand. Which most likely makes “the old ways” obsolete, but adaptation may take a while, causing “collateral damage” on individual or even group level.

So my take is that

• morality is a social construct,
• which needs to be revised regularly
• to sustain the survival of the group and the individuals
• under ever-changing conditions.

Thank you very much again for triggering my thinking !

.