In this blog post, using the problem of free-riding—which commonly occurs in college group projects—as a starting point, I’ll explore ways to create the best group projects and reflect on the question, “Is there a reason to always do the right thing?”
Why is free-riding a problem in group projects?
One of the new cultural experiences students encounter upon entering college is “group projects.” Unlike in high school, group projects often play a significant role in college courses and can even directly affect your GPA. The ideal group project involves sharing ideas with others to broaden one’s own insights and, together, producing high-quality work. However, such an ideal scenario rarely plays out in reality. I once participated in a group project that spanned an entire semester, working with five group members to conduct experiments, write a report, and give a presentation. Although the project lasted the whole semester, two members showed up only for the first class and then vanished, while another would only appear the day before each assignment was due, pestering the rest of us to let them see the work. It was truly a dismal situation. Perhaps the true purpose of group projects isn’t simply about learning, but rather about encountering a variety of people and realizing what kind of mindset and attitude one should adopt for the future. If you don’t end up with proactive group members, there’s a limit to how hard you can work on your own; and even if you do work hard alone and produce a result to submit, in the end, all group members’ names are listed equally on the report. It’s truly unfair. But if I were to just give up on the assignment, I’d lose sleep worrying about my grades, and tears would blur my vision. Does that mean I can only hope to be assigned good group members for group projects? Isn’t there a way to make group projects work optimally? In this article, I’ll propose a solution and, furthermore, attempt to answer the question, “Is there a reason to live righteously?”
How can we solve the problem of free-riding in group projects?
To achieve the best possible group project, the first step is to prevent free-riding. This is because a “best group project” means all members participate to produce a successful outcome. Of course, good results can be achieved through the efforts of just a few members, but having as many members as possible participate is more effective—both in terms of efficiency and the quality of the final product. So, what methods are available to encourage group members to participate, even passively? I propose a “retaliatory grading system” as a solution. The primary reason group members free-ride stems from the belief that they can receive the same grade as their peers even if they do not contribute. In other words, they believe they can reap the benefits of the group’s collective work without putting in the effort themselves. Therefore, to prevent free-riding, it is necessary to establish an assessment method that ensures only the free-riding group member receives a lower grade—in other words, a system that allows for “retaliation” against the free-rider.
So, what kinds of “assessment methods that allow for retaliation” exist? One example is a system in which peer evaluations among group members, conducted after the group project is completed, are given significant weight in individual grades. After completing all group activities, each group member writes a report on each of the other members—describing their level of participation, the tasks they were assigned, and how well they performed those tasks—and submits it to the professor. While group members cannot see the evaluations given to them, the professor verifies who evaluated whom and how, and strongly factors this into each student’s grade. If everyone is informed of this evaluation method before group activities begin, students will participate—even if they intended to be free riders—because they know they would be the only ones to receive a low evaluation. Even if this participation is passive and driven by external pressure.
How can we foster strong reciprocity to achieve the “best group work”?
Using the method described above, we can elicit participation from all group members, whether passive or voluntary. But can we truly call this “the best group work” if we’re merely getting them to participate passively? While working together is important, the most fundamental factor is the final outcome. If members merely participate passively, they may produce a result, but it cannot be called the “best possible outcome” that maximizes the abilities of all group members. Therefore, to achieve “the best possible group activity,” it is necessary to go beyond mere participation and enable members to engage actively—that is, to foster strong interaction.
The best way to foster strong interaction among all group members is to present yourself as someone who is close to the group and proactive about the task. First, you need to make an effort to become friends with your group members, rather than just acquaintances. Even if the encounter was involuntary—such as meeting through a class—you should strive to become closer through active communication, thereby fostering a sense of bond and responsibility toward one another. Once a sense of connection and responsibility toward one another has been established, it is important to demonstrate your own passion and dedication to group activities. If you are working hard on your own among group members who are complete strangers, it will not motivate them much. However, the situation changes once a sense of connection and responsibility has been established. Even someone who is participating in group activities out of necessity due to the grading system will feel a sense of trust and responsibility when they see someone they are close to and feel a bond with putting in effort. This trust and sense of responsibility will encourage them to participate voluntarily, which can lead to “optimal group work” where all members strive together for the group’s success. Additionally, it is necessary to continuously encourage group members. Although actively participating in group activities may be difficult for each individual right now, it is important to instill the conviction that this will ultimately lead to the best outcome—namely, good grades. Of course, the quality of the final product may vary depending on each member’s individual abilities, but it would be difficult to produce a result of significantly lower quality in a group activity where everyone has participated diligently.
Can “rightness” vary depending on an individual’s circumstances?
As noted above, we can conclude that group activities can only yield the best results when all members participate enthusiastically—that is, when everyone acts correctly. So, could this be the reason people should live righteously? Is the fact that it ultimately benefits the group as a whole a sufficient reason to live righteously? I do not think so. Should we act correctly unconditionally simply because we fear social condemnation or because our conscience pricks us if we do not? No. That is not a reason why we “must” live correctly, but rather a reason why it is “worth” living correctly. The solution to the free-rider problem presented above is, in fact, merely a way to maximize the reasons why it is “worth” living correctly.
Let’s consider the question “Is there a reason to live righteously?” to be equivalent to “Is there a reason to always live righteously?” Since the intent of the question “Is there a reason to live righteously?” is unclear, I’ve used the assumption “Is there a reason to always live righteously?” to make it more specific. In that case, the answer to the question may depend on the definition of “living righteously.” First, if we define “living rightly” simply as “not committing crimes,” the reason for always acting rightly would be crystal clear. This is because the “reason for always living rightly” ultimately becomes the same as the “reason for always refraining from committing crimes.” Committing crimes is an act that causes harm—whether great or small—to people and nature. Therefore, if a society existed where everyone callously inflicted harm on one another, that society would experience great chaos and eventually revert to the current state, where people restrict one another within the framework of “law.” This is a fact that can be confirmed throughout history. We refrain from committing crimes because a crime-free society is far more peaceful than one where crimes are permitted, and this is the reason we must not commit crimes. But is this always a moral reason for not committing crimes? No. It is merely a matter of preventing oneself and others from committing crimes in order to avoid causing social chaos. In other words, it is not a reason why one “should not” commit crimes, but simply a reason why one “does not” commit them. The act of not committing crimes is, ultimately, the result of self-interest aimed at the best interests of both the individual and society. Now, let’s expand the concept of “always living righteously” and define it as “not only refraining from crime but also consistently engaging in altruistic acts.”
Is there a reason we must always live altruistically? When working in groups, is there a reason we absolutely must avoid free-riding? Do we absolutely have to save a student in danger of being hit by a train? No. We do have reasons to act altruistically, but we have no reason to do so “always.” In other words, there is a reason to live righteously, but there is no reason to live righteously all the time. Throughout life, people constantly stand at the crossroads of altruism and self-interest, making choices. As we saw above, while the optimal group activity is one where everyone acts altruistically—since that is most beneficial for the group as a whole—we cannot deny that, for each individual, free-riding alone remains the most advantageous option. Therefore, each group member weighs the cost of the “sacrifice” required for altruistic behavior against the value of the “reward” it yields, and chooses between altruism and self-interest. If one finds it appealing that participating in group activities—even though it consumes more of one’s energy and time—leads to a better final project, then one will participate through altruistic behavior. On the other hand, if one places greater importance on the physical comfort and the ability to receive the project for free—even if it means being looked down upon by group members—then choosing to be a free-rider is a perfectly reasonable option. However, there is a deeply ingrained perception that one must avoid free-riding because it does not harm group members. But consider the following situation: there may be a case where one group member’s parent suddenly falls seriously ill, forcing them to care for their parent and leaving them with no choice but to free-ride. That person is engaging in the altruistic act of caring for their parents in place of the altruistic act of participating in group activities. In other words, it is impossible to always act correctly. Such actions are determined solely by individual circumstances, and there is no reason to penalize them.
The act of saving a student in danger of being hit by a train can also be explained from the perspective of choosing between altruism and self-interest, as described above. Rescuing a student in danger of being hit by a train carries the risk of sacrificing one’s own life, but it offers the benefit of not only saving the student but also receiving social praise. On the other hand, if one does not rescue the student, the student’s life is lost, but one not only preserves one’s own life but can also live a meaningful life going forward. In such a situation, must everyone always rescue the student? No. If that were the case, everyone would rush in to save the student. However, this does not actually happen, and it is extremely rare for anyone to rush in. Even if someone does rush in, it is because they place value on that action; it does not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do. Even if the student were a member of one’s own family, the choice would vary from person to person, and we cannot judge that choice as right or wrong.
Looking at the examples above, we can see that there isn’t always a moral imperative to act correctly; rather, it depends on each individual’s choice based on the situation, and that is how it should be. Furthermore, judging from these situations, we can see that even “altruistic acts” are ultimately carried out based on each individual’s “selfish judgment.” Whether someone acts altruistically or selfishly, it is a self-interested decision made according to their own will, and what is considered altruistic or selfish can vary depending on whose perspective one takes. To use the example above, if someone chooses to care for their parents during group activity time rather than freeloading, the child is acting altruistically from the parents’ perspective but selfishly from the group members’ perspective.
Is there a reason we must always live righteously?
In conclusion, the answer to “Is there a reason we must always live righteously?” is “No.” There can be no inherent reason for acting righteously; rather, for each individual or society, there are simply “reasons to act righteously” and “reasons to act unrighteously” depending on the situation, and people selfishly choose whichever they deem more rational. In other words, our “altruistic acts” are not purely “sacrificing oneself to help others”; even such sacrifice is merely the result of each individual’s self-interested choice. Thus, the author believes that “conscience” is also regarded as a form of self-interest. Its influence is far too great to be considered merely a byproduct of righteous behavior. This is because, should a situation arise where one must choose between material and spiritual benefits, conscience would constitute the largest portion of the spiritual benefit. Consequently, I believe that throughout life, people do not stand at the boundary between altruism and self-interest to make a choice, but rather choose one form of self-interest over another.
While writing this essay, I found myself reflecting on what constitutes right and wrong, and how I should live my life moving forward. I believe that emotional satisfaction—including that derived from conscience—is, on the whole, more valuable than material or physical benefits. This is simply my personal value system. Even if someone were to offer me the chance to receive 100 billion won—free from all legal constraints—in exchange for pressing a single button that would kill a stranger, I would not press that button. This is because I believe the pangs of conscience that would follow would be a greater loss than any material gain I might receive from pressing the button. That said, I won’t always live altruistically. If there’s a group member I don’t particularly like during a group activity, or if I really don’t feel like doing it and find it a hassle, I might gladly freeload. This is because resting comfortably—even if it means sacrificing my conscience and my relationships with my group members—could hold greater value for me. However, if I have the opportunity to participate in volunteer work, such as helping the elderly, I would gladly do so even if it makes me a little tired. This is because the sense of fulfillment—that is, the emotional satisfaction—I gain from volunteering brings me great happiness. Of course, this is a choice based on my own values; choices may vary depending on each person’s values, and no one can be forced to choose one side over the other.
