In this blog post, I’ll examine morality as an “ultimate promise” and use examples and logic to explore how the division of roles and building rapport (the carrot and the stick) reduce free-riding—and when these approaches reach their limits.
Every time the first snow falls, I always say, “Ah, so much has happened this year, and it’s finally coming to an end.” A significant portion of the “so much” I’m referring to consists of events that arose from meeting people. Especially as a student, I had the opportunity to meet many new people, making it a year rich in events and experiences.
That said, not every encounter is pleasant. When meeting new people, conflicts can arise, and one of the causes of these conflicts is free-riding. Free-riding is a detrimental behavior in which some members fail to participate in collective activities, thereby reducing overall efficiency and eroding social benefits. It’s only natural, then, that conflicts arise due to free-riding.
The best way to prevent free-riding is for every group member to live a life guided by a sense of moral obligation and to keep their promises; however, realistically, it’s difficult to expect such moral awareness from everyone. Therefore, I believe a practical alternative—the “carrot and stick” approach, which simultaneously provides both pressure and comfort—is effective.
The “carrot and stick” method I’m referring to isn’t simply a matter of dividing things into punishments and rewards. The key is to pursue two things in parallel: a clear division of roles and building rapport. These two elements create strong binding forces in different ways, which in turn help reduce free-riding.
For example, an agreement like this is highly effective: “By 10 p.m. tomorrow, you’ll write the introduction and Chapter 2 on the theoretical background, and I’ll write the main body and conclusion. I’ll integrate everything on Wednesday, and you’ll make the final revisions and submit it on Friday.” In contrast, an agreement like “Let’s just write our parts separately and merge them on Friday” has a low completion rate. This is because, in the former case, the roles assigned to each person create a sense of obligation that discourages free-riding.
Becoming close friends also produces a similar effect. It’s harder to refuse a request from a close friend than from a stranger. The intimacy and friendship built up over time become the bonds that make us accountable to one another. Such emotional ties sometimes act more strongly than rules or punishments, curbing the temptation to be lazy.
Ultimately, a clear division of labor (sense of responsibility) and intimacy (comfort) work together to prevent free-riding. There are two major benefits to group activities. One is the opportunity to get to know people, and the other is the ability to achieve results greater than what any individual could accomplish alone through division of labor. These two benefits explain the utility of the method described earlier.
First, it is an excellent approach because it is a moderate method that prevents free-riding without damaging relationships with others. Methods such as penalty points or public punishment can certainly reduce free-riding, but they carry a high risk of causing embarrassment and damaging the team’s overall atmosphere and sense of closeness. In contrast, dividing roles and building rapport encourages participation while maintaining relationships.
Second, repeated interactions lead people to act altruistically. The perception that members will continue to encounter and collaborate with one another creates a sense of obligation—the realization that “this isn’t a one-time encounter”—which discourages purely selfish behavior and encourages more faithful adherence to the division of labor. Furthermore, assigning specific roles increases the likelihood of action by clearly defining who will do what.
However, this method also has its limitations. From the perspective of the group’s overall benefit, this type of constraint designed to curb free-riding can sometimes actually lead to inefficiency. Sometimes, simply allowing free-riding can lead to better results for the team as a whole.
There is a case that illustrates this well. In a webtoon, the protagonist, facing a tight deadline for homework, asked his parents to make a giraffe’s body and legs. However, his parents misunderstood the request and made a human torso and legs instead. In the end, the assignment was completed as a monster and submitted. This example shows that even if someone takes on the responsibility and passively helps, the result can be a mess if that person does not properly understand the purpose or content of the task.
Preventing free-riding through constraints is often motivated by a desire to avoid “personal loss.” As a result, participants approach the task with an involuntary and passive attitude rather than voluntary enthusiasm. Such situations tend to lead not to an effective division of labor, but to a formal and inefficient distribution of tasks.
In conclusion, the parallel use of the “carrot and stick”—clear role allocation and a sense of camaraderie—is a practical strategy for reducing free-riding. However, we must keep in mind that this strategy is not always the best solution, and that excessive constraints can sometimes actually reduce the group’s spontaneity and efficiency.
Ultimately, we must not forget that for a group to reap the maximum benefit from group activities, each member must feel a sense of obligation to voluntarily keep their promises. The free-rider problem can only be ultimately resolved by viewing it not merely as the negligence of one or two individuals, but as a “promise made to many people.” The importance of this sense of obligation to keep promises can also be seen through the limitations of the “free-rider prevention” strategy, which is considered the best solution.
If we broaden the concept of this promise, I believe that people should live righteously. This is because morality itself is the most fundamental and ultimate promise among people. The rationale for upholding morality can be broadly divided into two points: first, morality is the most socially appropriate set of behavioral guidelines—in other words, a useful manual to follow; and second, the chaos that arises when morality is violated is immense.
The argument that morality must be upheld because it is socially appropriate—as it is the promise that most strongly reflects the circumstances of the times—sounds self-evident at first glance. Looking at history, we can see that various laws, customs, and conventions have emerged and disappeared depending on the era and culture. While some customs may be difficult to understand from a modern perspective, the reasons why they were valid at the time often become clear when we consider the historical context.
For example, from today’s perspective, customs such as polygamy clearly have aspects that are unequal and difficult to accept. However, examining the historical context of early Islamic society helps us understand its background. At that time, many peoples led nomadic lives, and in nomadic societies, raiding was a part of economic activity. Due to the dangers of raiding and combat, a disproportionately high number of relatively powerful men died, resulting in a surplus of widows.
It was extremely difficult for a woman to survive on her own in a nomadic society. Consequently, a system emerged in which strong men protected and cared for multiple women, and within that society, this became a valid and encouraged custom. Conversely, in an environment like modern-day South Korea, polygamy is entirely inappropriate. The difference in what constitutes “morality” does not stem from who is “smarter,” but rather from the differing historical circumstances and needs of each group.
As such, we can see that morality does not always exist in the same form but is a set of agreements that changes according to the circumstances of the times. When we establish guidelines for our lives, it is reasonable to refer to the “manual” of morality that best reflects the realities of that era and society; this is why we come to believe that we must live righteously.
The second reason is that the scale of chaos caused by failing to uphold morality is immense. To give a recent, minor example, while waiting in line at a shuttle bus stop, a friend and I joked that it would be “fun” to cut in line and board the bus. At that moment, I wondered why no one was actually cutting in line.
The reason is that people are aware of the chaos caused by cutting in line. If someone were to habitually cut in line, others would soon follow suit, and the shuttle stop would instantly turn into a free-for-all. In a situation where everyone is fighting to get ahead of each other, no one would be able to use the shuttle properly.
The scene in front of high school cafeterias is a prime example of this phenomenon. I often see accidents happen when people don’t line up properly and end up shoving each other. It’s interesting to note that at any school, the area in front of the cafeteria often turns into a free-for-all, and teachers occasionally step in to enforce order. Their strategy is to spend about one week out of every month strictly enforcing the rules and scolding students loudly at the entrance, while keeping things relatively lax for the rest of the month.
This isn’t because the teachers are lazy. They know from experience that if they identify the root cause of the chaos resulting from moral violations and enforce strict discipline for a set period, order will be maintained for quite some time afterward. In other words, strongly penalizing minor violations has the effect of stabilizing overall order.
Just as the term “butterfly effect” suggests, a single small action can lead to unexpectedly large consequences. The same applies to the impact of violating moral standards. While there may not be an immediate, visible effect, the accumulated violations and chaos can eventually return like an uncontrollable typhoon. That is why we must live by moral standards.
Starting with the free-rider problem, we have examined why we must live righteously and why we must uphold the promise of morality. In summary, morality serves as the most appropriate code of conduct for any given era, and the chaos resulting from its violation can cause significant harm to both individuals and society. Therefore, we need to reconsider just how important it is to live a life guided by morality.
Sometimes we say, “That person is as boring as a morality textbook.” However, looking back with the passage of time, we realize that those very people were exemplary individuals who truly upheld the moral standards we should follow, and the discomfort we felt toward them might have been nothing more than jealousy.
