It seems as if the effort to place morality within deterministic evolutionary behavior annihilates the human freedom of intentional selection of moral criteria. Humanity has evolved beyond the age of moral innocence of animals however, and might not well choose to reenter that state through the sinkhole of evolutionary responsibility.
Tit-for-Tat (Rappaport) may not work if only one winner is possible, for instance, if the loser dies. It also assumes an individual point of view that may not work in mass social behavior. That is the logic structure of a game between individuals that is believed to account for moral content (of the mass social Venn Diagram of moral behaviors) may not serve or reflect the moral praxis of the social dialectic’s interest and formation.
A more concrete example might be tit-for-tat among the rich that leads to concentration of wealth and breakdown of social well being and moral norms for a majority; the poor, yet formerly middle class.
Monte Carlo Theory- games algorithm for genetic communities fulfilling goals (of inputting as much mass-energy as possible for-oneself). Trial and error with error punished by extinction. Abstraction to consider experimental trial and error without the death penalty.
Boolean algebra/truth tables for testing reciprocal altruism
Though it is reciprocal altruism, it is nondiscriminatory regarding members… A formalized structure within the theoretical paradigm of a modern Christian support group that helps everyone in the group with their goods or services. Because everyone would give, it would be useful to quantify the goods and services to make it more serviceable- avoiding bankrupting some and benefiting others too much. There would be a community good and services credit exchange and members could get what they need. It would function as a bank. Withdrawals and contributions would be limited, though the rich could donate credits to the poor. There would be a cap on the maximum and minimum number of credits any individual could possess though none on the quantity of input from individuals. One would receive credits for giving, though the entire system is based on Godly altruism.
Corinthians 3:19 “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”
Conforming oneself to worldliness is counterintuitive to spiritual/moral development
Human reason surpasses the blind quantum computer maker paradigm.