I don't believe things are anywhere near ok, and I think most people would agree with that. But the article in question is a high-minded discussion of ideals.
I would personally consider the definition of cooperation to be explicitly voluntary.
The Aztecs believed that by ritually sacrificing their fellow people that the needs of the many would be met at the expense of the few. Because this was belief universally understood to be true, anyone who did not want themselves to be sacrificed would be considered selfish and anti-social.
A socially-minded morality would insist that people to be sacrificed had a social duty to do so.
An individually-minded morality would insist that people should only be sacrificed by their own choice.
I don't believe either description to have much to say about the morality of human sacrifice or the practicalities of cooperation.
I think that the evolutionary-psychology from whence human sacrifice was born (I can save food for the winter -> sacrificing things in the present can improve my future -> sacrificing is a good strategy in general) has not left the human psyche. You can remove human sacrifice from the religious idols on the mountain, but you can't remove the impetus to sacrifice other people for a perceived gain.
I honestly can't provide you with a perfect moral or economic system. I just don't believe anyone else can either, so it's best not to force other people to go along with anything.
You know, I just imagined someone being held in custody by the police. Such a person would be described as 'cooperating' if they were not actively resisting. So, perhaps the understanding of cooperation must also include subjugation. English can be odd.
Another example: conscripted soldiers routinely cooperate with one another. Without the conscription and ongoing threats of punishment for desertion, most of them would, presumably, choose not be there at all.
I would personally consider the definition of cooperation to be explicitly voluntary.
The Aztecs believed that by ritually sacrificing their fellow people that the needs of the many would be met at the expense of the few. Because this was belief universally understood to be true, anyone who did not want themselves to be sacrificed would be considered selfish and anti-social.
A socially-minded morality would insist that people to be sacrificed had a social duty to do so.
An individually-minded morality would insist that people should only be sacrificed by their own choice.
I don't believe either description to have much to say about the morality of human sacrifice or the practicalities of cooperation.
I think that the evolutionary-psychology from whence human sacrifice was born (I can save food for the winter -> sacrificing things in the present can improve my future -> sacrificing is a good strategy in general) has not left the human psyche. You can remove human sacrifice from the religious idols on the mountain, but you can't remove the impetus to sacrifice other people for a perceived gain.
I honestly can't provide you with a perfect moral or economic system. I just don't believe anyone else can either, so it's best not to force other people to go along with anything.