Author contracts already do all of those things. Advances have gotten lower and lower over the years ("lowballing them"), and typically pay out incrementally at various phases of completion ("compensation to milestones"). Once the book is done, most of the author's compensation comes from royalties ("tying compensation to total sales numbers").
Authors are already highly incentivized not to commit "moral turpitude" because doing so will tank sales of their book and thus their royalties.
Publishers aren't adding morals clauses to incentivize authors. It's just another example of the classic move a large corporation in a position of power trying to grab even more power. If they could get away with it, publishers would add a clause to every contract saying, "We can demand your advance back at any time for any reason or no reason at all, just because we feel like it."
The risk is not recouping their investment, but rather degrading the overall enterprise value of their entire publishing business through bad PR. Unless the author agrees to tie their pay to the performance of the entire enterprise (which why would you), something like a morality clause is a better option.
But funny thing, most authors don't want to use vanity press, and most writer's guilds don't consider publication by a vanity press to be a valid criteria for membership in the Author's Guild, Science Fiction Writer's Association, Romance Writer's Association, etc.
The largest development cost for a book is the labor to write the book, and the training required to be able to do so, and that is fronted entirely by the author.
Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author. Printing costs have been going down for decades. Print on demand now means that publishers have complete control over choosing a printing cost that minimizes their risk and matches their projected sales. Editing is a cost, but is relatively small compared to writing the book.
> There is a name for that sort of arrangement; it's called a "vanity press".
That term arose in the time before print-on-demand where an author really did have to sink significant capital into printing their own book. Likewise, before digital distribution, a vanity press author was unlikely to be able to get their book in many stores. Choosing to self-publish a book that couldn't get picked up by a traditional publisher was an indication that the author was doing something for their own enrichment more than for good financial reasons because they were unlikely to recoup those costs.
But self-publishing today requires little capital investment and it's trivial for a self-published book to be widely distributed. That means it's much more possible for an author to be making a sound financial choice to self publish.
> don't consider publication by a vanity press to be a valid criteria for membership in the Author's Guild, Science Fiction Writer's Association, Romance Writer's Association, etc.
The Author's guild says:
> Regular Membership: Traditionally published authors with at least 1 published book in the U.S.; self-published authors who have made at least $5,000 in the past 18 months from their writing; and freelance writers who have published 3+ pieces or made $5,000 in the past 18 months.
SFWA says:
> A published work of fiction of a minimum of 40,000 words either sold to a small press or self-published for which the author can demonstrate net income of at least $3,000 over the course of a year since January 1, 2013. Income can be in the form of advance, royalties, or some combination thereof or;
RWA just says:
> Per RWA policy, all prospective members must provide proof that they are seriously pursuing a career in romance writing in order to qualify for General membership. Either of the following serve as proof: One complete original work of romance fiction of at least 20,000 words. Multiple complete original works of romance fiction* which combine for a total of at least 20,000 words.
No, not a loan. An advance does not normally get paid back if it doesn't earn out.