Oh, that makes sense to me, thanks. This is what I understand now: Once a capitalist business is created, it focuses on how to survive, compete, and profit, and it's hard for the organization to take a step back and ask what it "ought" to be doing. That same "game" or "contract" worldview, approach, or language can migrate into other, more personal, more "human" conversations that might initially be framed as moral questions but almost immediately end up as pragmatic or instrumental questions about how to stay afloat in the world. Those pragmatic questions implicitly threaten "Or would you like to go back to the woods in perpetual starvation and conflict?" even though the imagined "state of nature" probably never existed and never will; we are social beings, so obviously we have lived in societies and will continue to do so, even if we pause to talk about abstract moral questions. The suggested threat of the "state of nature" looming over us may serve to deflect us from having the moral conversation. The deflection is based on an assumption or fear: If we pause to talk about moral values, someone faster than us will do a drive-by and rob us of our capitalist values, because the real world is always gaming and we can't let our guard down or get distracted.