Mmmm, loving that sweet, delicious fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.... nom nom nom nom...

Sorry, what connection does “philosopher” Massimo Pigliucci have to this research? None? He’s certainly not one of the authors of the study and they probably don’t know him. Then why is his banal socialist commentary relevant? Oh, it’s not. It’s just mindless “income inequality” drivel completely unrelated to the study. The study found that respect for property is a common moral value of many societies, full stop. It does not equivocate about how the property was earned or how much property one has in relation to others. That’s just Rich Haridy’s way of interjecting his opinion into an otherwise interesting study; by vicariously inserting Pigliucci’s justification for taking away someone’s property without their consent; otherwise known as “stealing” by people whose morals haven’t been corrupted by the self-justification rampant in liberal academia. “Income equality”, also known as socialism and Marxism, is the preferred ideology of people with autocratic tendencies. Simply put, they’re envious that others have more than they do.

Of course, in every society there are also many people in whom greed has overcome the sense of social morality, who love to ridicule it. These are parasites, treating moralists as a natural resource, while pretending to not need the fruits of cooperation at all.

@aksdad, I wish this site's comment system let us like/star user's entries, cuz yours would get mine! Don't let the "Green New Deal" proponents read this list, as it surely won't fit their socialist agenda in the least bit! I'll take your "envious" comment a bit further to say that they're either not willing to put in the effort to earn those "big bux" for themselves or simply lack the cleverness to do so, and that apparently justifies their intent to relieve the current owner of their wealth. Hmmm.

Well said aksdad. This was a great article until philosipher Massimo Pigliucci was introduced. This particular quote was incredibly irritating "If your wealth is both disproportionate and arrived at by exploiting others (and let's be frank, if it is the former, it can hardly not be the latter)". Socialist garbage.

The last few paragraphs should be clearly identified as the socio/political philosophy (bias) of the reporter, not part of the study being reported on.

On defining Good action, the author summarizes it as action "that benefits cooperative behaviors...". It's hardly surprising, given that people come together largely for cooperation. But then the article gratuitously adds "that serve the collective." I don't see anything here to support any consideration of "the collective". Indeed, the seven attributes include (1) respect and (2) property rights, arguing against support of The Collective. Support for The Collective seems to be only the author's prejudice, here.
The author also leaps to a confusion of property rights and stealing, ignoring a distinction that many ethicists make between property and possessions. Respect for your right to your tooth brush and your shirt does not imply respect for any land rights beyond that under your dwelling (plus curtilage). It can get complicated.

Evidently, neither Haridy nor Pigliucci understand the difference between ethics and morals. Many people not only get them confused, but also use them interchangeably, thinking that they are the same thing! Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, does not take the masochist into account. As to Pigliucci, just who is it that gets to set the standard for what amount is "disproportionate"? How is it arrived at? People can be lured into Socialism, at first, but then they need to be forced into it when more is taken from them than they get back. That is why Sarah Brady said that guns need to be taken away from the public, so that a socialist agenda could be imposed upon them. Imposed upon them. That means done by some kind of force, right?
Randy

Land rights give the owner a vested interest in society. Otherwise, he is only indoctrinated to work for the good of society. Only a group of idealistic and like minded individuals can succeed in this way.

Massimo Pigliucci is an atheist and evolutionist. As such I do not understand his moral objection to the super rich. If there is no absolute truth and survival goes to the fittest, then those who are capable of becoming the super rich are obviously the fittest. His statements are ludicrous.