[ QUOTE ]
...It's definitely an idea so care to explain why its a bad one.
...

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, I like Susan Blackmore's work.

I am not saying it is a bad idea. I am saying that is an ideaa and that there are many other ideas on the subject and, afik, no definitive theory yet.

Personally, I try to avoid loading my investigations with anything remotely concerned with "right" and "wrongs" when it comes to evolution. Another idea, maybe not better, but not worse, I think, is that the cooprative aspects of human being are a by-product of that innate ability to love/empathise, which is manifested as parental love. Now, this was definitely an asset as it enabled a much longer dependence, of the young in the species, to the parents (and hence development of a body of knowledge affecting behaviour, outside of the genetic mechanism.. the birth of culture, maybe?). Altough this is useful, like many genetic characteristics, it only has a limited usefulness and may even become a problem when it is applied to the other members of the group. This may be so because, the mechanism to stop the activity of the drive, whilst needed to enable emancipation of the young, may itself be an inperfect or maldajusted drive when projected more broadly. But as I said, I am not sure. I don't know of any definitive research in the matter. Maybe we will know, maybe not. The point to remember is that an evolutionary change has to be contributing to survival in an overall manner, but may have many specific (side) effects that are not desirable.

As I said in another post, I am witholding closure on that one, and stay agnostic, but very interetested in new developments, vis-a-vis morality as an evolutionary mechanism. I worry that it may be a back door entry of meaning (or purpose) and its attendant pseudo-theories, in a scientific field.