In this blog post, I’ll examine why we tend to condemn selfish human behavior through the concept of “conscience,” and consider how the free-rider problem that arises in group projects can be mitigated from the perspective of conscience.
Why Do People Act Selfishly?
In 2016, when the entire nation was in an uproar over the so-called “Choi Soon-sil influence-peddling scandal,” the media reported on the related allegations day after day, and large-scale candlelight vigils took place continuously. Many citizens could not contain their anger over this situation and strongly condemned those involved. This condemnation appears to go beyond mere anger over illegal acts. However, just as various academic disciplines assume that humans are selfish beings who pursue rational self-interest, everyone possesses a selfish side. Even without such major incidents, free-riding is a common example of human selfishness found all around us. Even in the free-riding problem in group projects—which many broadcasters satirized at the time—some individuals are simply pursuing their own interests. Is there any reason to condemn such self-interested people, whose behavior could, in a way, be considered rational? If it is because they acted improperly, what reason is there for us to live correctly? Furthermore, let’s consider what measures might be taken to prevent such situations, focusing specifically on the free-riding problem in group projects.
As mentioned earlier, disciplines that study human behavior assume that humans are selfish beings. One of the basic assumptions of economics is that humans rationally pursue their own interests. In any given situation, a sufficiently rational person will make choices that maximize their own interests, and this seems only natural. Furthermore, evolutionary biology views selfish behavior as potentially advantageous for survival. Sacrificing oneself to help others may be a disadvantageous behavior from an evolutionary perspective, and from a simplified evolutionary viewpoint, it can be argued that such traits would be difficult to sustain in the long term. Even without mentioning these academic aspects, it is hard to deny that we all possess a selfish side within us.
Why do humans condemn selfish behavior?
Even though humans inherently possess this selfish side, we often condemn those who act selfishly. Countless citizens participated in the candlelight vigils criticizing the “Choi Soon-sil state affairs manipulation scandal,” and voices condemning the incident continued to emerge across various social media platforms. Citizens condemned actions committed to maximize personal gain—actions that might even have been rational from the perpetrator’s perspective. To condemn someone means demanding that they not live selfishly or that they live righteously; this demand presupposes the belief that there is a moral imperative to live righteously. Furthermore, those who commit heinous crimes such as murder, rape, and child abuse also become targets of condemnation. People often react with horror to such crimes, asking, “How could a person do that?” This implies, “A person wouldn’t do that!”—in other words, it reflects the belief that “A person ought to live righteously!”
If we believe that people should live righteously, what is the reason for this belief? If the reason we condemn the “Choi Soon-sil State Affairs Interference Scandal” is that there is a standard requiring people to live righteously and the individuals involved have crossed that line, then what exactly is that standard? Some might say it is because they abandoned morality, while others might argue that they violated ethics or betrayed trust. As a concept that encompasses morality, ethics, and trust, this paper argues that the reason we must live righteously is “conscience.” The English term “conscience” is derived from the Latin word “conscientia,” which has etymological roots meaning “to know together.” In other words, conscience can be interpreted as “knowing together.” Focusing on this meaning, this paper seeks to explain the standard by which people judge rightness through the concept of conscience. If we assume that every person possesses this standard—a conscience that judges rightness within their heart—then we can say that the reason for the condemnation of wrongful actions, including the “Choi Soon-sil State Affairs Manipulation Scandal,” is that they betrayed the conscience—which is universally recognized—and pursued personal gain. Despite the universal conscience that forced sexual acts are wrong, if someone commits rape to satisfy their personal sexual desires, they deserve to be condemned; here, the reason one must not rape is conscience. Similarly, the reason free-riding is wrong is that it involves reaping personal benefits without effort, contrary to the conscience that we must collectively bear the obligations imposed on the community.
Does everyone possess a conscience?
As can be seen from its etymology, the conscience—presented as a reason to live righteously—is important for its universality; however, it is difficult to specify exactly which actions are right and which are wrong. Therefore, the standard of conscience, which is not concretely defined, may have its limitations as a reason to live righteously. However, even though it may be difficult to determine whether a specific action goes against one’s conscience or not, there is likely a universal conscience shared to some extent by all of humanity. Everyone intuitively judges that committing murder for personal gain is wrong. Furthermore, the reason countless citizens took to the streets with candles during the “Choi Soon-sil state affairs manipulation scandal” was that the actions of those involved were, at the very least, seen as betraying the conscience of those citizens—and this, too, can be viewed as a universal standard. The statement mentioned earlier, “As a human being, one ought to live righteously!” also implies the existence of a universal standard that everyone is expected to possess. We also perceive people with traits such as psychopathy—characterized by a lack of empathy and guilt—as individuals who exhibit moral behavior distinct from that of the general public. In this way, we view those who appear to lack a universal conscience as exceptional cases, while assuming that every human being possesses some degree of moral judgment. Therefore, even if it is difficult to define precisely, we can say that the universality of conscience exists.
Can awakening one’s conscience reduce free-riding?
If universal conscience is the reason we should live righteously, then we must appeal to that conscience to correct those who act unjustly. Free-riding occurs when multiple team members work on a task together; even though they could all work hard to achieve a good result, from an individual’s perspective, not working hard yields greater benefits than working hard. Free-riders are engaging in the rational and self-interested behavior mentioned earlier in the contexts of economics and evolutionary biology. If conscience is the reason we should live righteously in the face of such self-interest, then awakening the free-rider’s conscience is the fundamental solution to preventing free-riding. A well-known Native American proverb states that a person’s conscience is like a triangle. If you roll the triangle, at first you’ll bump into its corners and feel pain—this is what is known as a “prick of conscience.” However, if you keep rolling the triangle, the corners will wear down until you can no longer feel that prick of conscience. To correct wrongful behavior, we must restore the worn-down conscience within our hearts so that it becomes a sharp triangle once again.
Let’s consider specific ways to appeal to conscience to prevent free-riding. As a simple method to reinforce the understanding that free-riding is wrong, you could have students write an essay or hold a discussion on free-riding early in the course. If such conditions aren’t feasible, you could raise awareness of conscience and reduce free-riding by having students sign a pledge not to free-ride when submitting group assignments. Another approach involves awakening students’ consciences through communication among group members. Juan Camilo Cárdenas studied the impact of communication and cooperation on collective behavior in several experiments dealing with shared resources and cooperation issues; his findings showed that communication promotes cooperative behavior. Furthermore, research by Jane Sell and Rick Wilson also reported that face-to-face communication can influence cooperative behavior. Based on these studies, we can anticipate that face-to-face communication is likely to awaken each group member’s conscience and thereby reduce free-riding. In the case of group activities among college students, with the advancement of the internet and the widespread use of instant messaging apps, many students divide tasks among themselves and then share their work online. Various online storage services are fueling this trend, which implies that face-to-face communication is relatively declining. Considering the effects of face-to-face communication mentioned earlier, we can anticipate that free-riding would decrease if group members spent more time meeting in person. A practical way to implement this is for the instructor to require group members to meet at least once a week when assigning group projects and to verify attendance through photos or other means.
Can Conscience Overcome Selfishness?
As discussed in economics and evolutionary biology, the selfish side of human nature clearly exists. Nevertheless, when we witness the “Choi Soon-sil State Affairs Scandal,” we are filled with outrage, light candles in protest, and condemn selfish free-riders. Perhaps this is because at its core lies the concept of conscience—a universal principle believed to reside in every human being. We believe we must live according to our conscience, and that it is wrong to pursue personal gain against it. Even if we cannot define it precisely, conscience exists as a universal standard shared by all humanity. If we can sharpen the dulled “triangle of conscience” in those who act selfishly, we can guide them toward living righteously. In the case of group projects, we can awaken their consciences through writing, discussion, signing pledges, or communication to help them recognize the free-rider problem. Thus, the reason we must live righteously is rooted in the universal conscience that all human beings share to some extent. Wasn’t the “Choi Soon-sil state affairs manipulation scandal” condemned precisely because the individuals involved betrayed the conscience that countless citizens—or perhaps even everyone—believed they possessed at the time?
