In this blog post, based on ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, I’ll examine ways to prevent free-riding and the reasons behind them, and ultimately reflect on why humans should live righteously.
Every student experiences group projects at least once in their life. However, most students who have participated in group projects have likely experienced frustration and been harmed by “free-riders”—people who try to benefit from others’ efforts without contributing any work or effort of their own. Yet, even in these situations, no clear solution has been proposed to stop free-riders. Is there truly no way to prevent free-riding and ensure the best possible group project experience? Furthermore, does the act of free-riding actually benefit the free-rider? Starting now, we will explore ways to prevent free-riding and achieve the best possible group work, based on ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’. Through this process, we will also examine whether there is a reason for humans to live righteously.
From now on, we will refer to ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, the book we will be using as our basis, as the “textbook.” The primary text addresses the question, “How did altruistic humans come to exist?” Among the hypotheses presented in this book to explain the emergence of altruistic humans are the repeated reciprocity hypothesis and the communication hypothesis. The repeated reciprocity hypothesis explains altruistic humans using the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” In other words, it is a hypothesis that explains humans who continue their altruistic behavior only until the moment another person helps them, and who cease such behavior if the other person merely receives help without offering any reciprocation. Furthermore, the communication hypothesis posits that the act of communication between people serves to deter selfish behavior and encourage altruistic behavior to a greater extent. So, let’s consider a method to prevent free-riding based on these two hypotheses.
First, assuming that free-riders naturally want to earn better grades as well, we employ the “tit-for-tat” strategy, which is based on the repeated reciprocity hypothesis. However, since simply free-riding in response to a free-rider’s lack of contribution would ultimately cause significant harm to me as well, we must use a method that harms only the free-rider. In other words, we need a strategy that says, “If you fail to do your part and try to free-ride, I will punish you accordingly.” The ultimate goal of this approach is to prevent free-riding by lowering the free-rider’s grade. For example, we could give the group leader the authority to evaluate group members and reflect those evaluations in their grades, or we could directly bring up the issue of free-riding with the professor. Doing so will result in disadvantages for free-riders, and once this becomes known, the number of free-riders will decrease. Furthermore, based on the communication hypothesis, encouraging free-riders to feel guilty about their behavior or to take responsibility for their role through mutual dialogue will also help prevent free-riding.
So, what are the reasons or grounds for believing that the proposed solutions are the best approach? According to the textbook, strategies based on the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis are sufficiently effective; however, to guarantee this effectiveness, it is necessary to assume that the situation occurs frequently enough. Furthermore, while the Communication Hypothesis has the advantage of encouraging voluntary participation among members, it has the disadvantage of being unrealistic in some respects. Nevertheless, the reason these two strategies were chosen is that they can function in a complementary relationship. The Communication Hypothesis’s ability to encourage voluntary participation compensates for situations that are not repetitive—where the Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis is difficult to apply.
Furthermore, the fact that the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis can impose direct penalties on free-riders helps offset the unrealistic aspects of the communication hypothesis. I believed that using these two strategies in a way where their strengths compensate for each other’s weaknesses would result in a more effective approach; therefore, I presented the combined use of these two strategies as the optimal solution.
This raises a fundamental question: “Is free-riding really wrong? In other words, is there a reason we should live righteously?” From the perspective of a free-rider, is there any behavior more beneficial than free-riding? Aren’t humans, by nature, beings who act in their own best interest? Isn’t free-riding, in fact, a beneficial behavior? I will now attempt to provide an answer to this question.
Personal benefit can be broadly divided into short-term and long-term benefits. Short-term benefits may include direct and material gains, while long-term benefits may include indirect and psychological gains. In fact, free-riding is an excellent way to gain short-term benefits. This is because while others are working hard, the free-rider does not have to exert any effort and can instead spend that time doing whatever they want and enjoying themselves. However, free-riding not only fails to yield long-term benefits but actually results in long-term losses. Let’s carefully consider the solutions to prevent free-riding presented earlier. Ultimately, every solution can result in long-term disadvantages for free-riders. Lower grades may put free-riders at a disadvantage when seeking employment or applying to graduate school, and a poor reputation may make it difficult for them to function smoothly in society. In other words, while free-riding may be beneficial in the short term, it is an action that leads to losses in the long run.
So, is free-riding the only behavior that offers short-term gains but results in long-term losses? No. Almost every immoral act shares this characteristic. In fact, immoral acts tend to benefit the individual in the moment but ultimately cause harm in the long run. How, then, should we live our lives? The answer is clear: we must live righteously. The reasons for this assertion are as follows.
First, if we do not live righteously, we may face retaliation. According to the textbook, humans tend to dislike injustice more than they dislike loss. In other words, when people feel they have been treated unjustly, they will retaliate against the person who acted unfairly toward them, even if it means suffering a loss themselves. Readers have surely experienced this as well. Let me give an example that illustrates this situation well. Let’s say there are three people: A, B, and C. One day, C hands A 10,000 won and tells A to split it fairly with B. Suppose that if B is dissatisfied with the amount A gives him and refuses it, C will take the 10,000 won back. From an economic perspective, B has no reason to refuse, since they stand to receive money for free—even if it means A is left with just 1 won. However, in actual experiments, most people in B’s position tended to refuse the offer if the amount proposed was 25% or less of the 10,000 won. This trend suggests that people have a strong aversion to unfair situations, even if it means they suffer a loss themselves. In other words, applying this to the behavior of free-riders, group members in the same group as a free-rider might create a situation where they, too, fail to fulfill their roles properly—even at the cost of losing their own grades—as a form of retaliation against the free-rider. Even if they don’t go that far, they might invest their own time to speak with the professor privately about the free-rider, or—after putting in the effort to complete the group assignment—omit the free-rider’s name from the presentation. For these reasons, free-riding is highly likely to be a losing proposition rather than a profitable one; therefore, we must live honestly and avoid free-riding.
Second, if one does not live righteously, they may be marginalized by society. Humans are social animals and, as such, exist to live in harmony with their neighbors. Therefore, communication is always involved in the process of interacting with others. Furthermore, the act of communication influences human thought. As mentioned in the first reason, people dislike unfairness and tend to despise unjust and improper behavior. Consequently, during communication, people speak negatively to those around them about individuals who act improperly. As a result, the person who acted improperly gains a bad reputation, and those who consistently hear these negative remarks come to dislike, despise, and avoid that person. In other words, that person is ostracized from society. As a result, no one will help them, business dealings with them will cease, and eventually, all relationships with them will be severed. Under these circumstances, is there any situation in which that person could actually benefit? I believe not. That person is now left to fend for themselves. Therefore, for these reasons, humans must live righteously.
Third, long-term losses can inflict far greater damage than the benefits gained from short-term gains. The first two reasons both emphasize that we must live righteously because they lead to long-term losses. However, in reality, unrighteous behavior can bring short-term gains, as it provides momentary happiness and comfort. Yet while these short-term gains are fleeting, long-term losses can persist for a long time. Even if we consider only the duration of the benefits, it can be said that gaining long-term benefits is far better than gaining short-term ones. Furthermore, the long-term harm resulting from unethical behavior can be particularly painful on a psychological level. Losing people you can rely on, or being surrounded only by those seeking revenge—these will always remain a heavy burden. Such mental anguish can significantly diminish a person’s quality of life. Therefore, we must live righteously.
Thus far, I have presented methods to prevent free-riding and ensure optimal group activities, along with the reasons and evidence supporting their effectiveness. Based on this, I have examined my argument and the rationale for why we should live righteously. To summarize the author’s argument: free-riding is ultimately a behavior that can result in harm to the free-rider, and any unethical behavior sharing similar characteristics with free-riding should be avoided. In other words, humans can benefit in the long run by living righteously, and because humans are by nature profit-seeking beings, they should, in fact, live righteously.
