In this blog post, I’d like to explore methods for preventing free-riding and, from evolutionary and psychological perspectives, consider why humans should live righteously.
Is there a reason to live righteously? This question has long been a subject of debate among philosophers. As seen in the case of Lee Su-hyun, who lost his life while saving someone on the subway, this question involves various dilemmas. There are many people in the world who live righteously, but do they act that way because they have a reason to do so? What we need to consider here is not “the reason for living righteously,” but rather whether “there is a reason to live righteously.” To reach a logical conclusion on this topic, I will first consider ways to prevent free-riding.
After I was accepted into college, the question I was asked most often by my high school juniors was what was the most fun part of college life. I asked them back what kind of activities they thought would be the most fun, and surprisingly, quite a few of them answered “group projects.” As such, during high school, students often look forward to group projects, viewing them as fun and an opportunity to bond with their group members. However, the majority of college students do not think that way. In particular, if there is a free-rider in the group, it can be a major source of stress for those who want to work hard and earn good grades. It’s all too common for the remaining group members to give up on the free-rider and double their efforts to produce a quality final product. To find a solution to this problem, I analyzed various hypotheses related to human altruism from Choi Jeong-gyu’s book ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, which I read recently. Through this analysis, I reached the following conclusion on how to prevent free-riding:
To prevent free-riding in group projects, the most effective solution is to make activities that foster camaraderie among group members a mandatory part of the assignment. Group projects are built on interaction among members and entail a sense of personal responsibility. Free-riding stems from the psychology of turning a blind eye and pursuing only one’s own interests, based on the assumption that group members will never meet again. According to the communication hypothesis mentioned in Choi Jeong-gyu’s ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, simply making eye contact and talking to one another significantly reduces betrayal. This hypothesis argues that face-to-face communication instills a sense of obligation to engage in socially beneficial behavior and increases trust among participants. Furthermore, face-to-face communication fosters a collective consciousness that “we are all in this together,” and, above all, it induces a sense of guilt in those who employ free-riding strategies. Based on this hypothesis, we can conclude that if group members meet—even if only out of a sense of obligation—to build trust, a sense of personal responsibility will emerge from that relationship, thereby reducing the likelihood that people will resort to free-riding strategies.
Statistical data and personal experience provide further support for this alternative approach. In a past survey of college students regarding group assignments, it was reported that over half of the respondents cited “getting everyone together” as the most difficult aspect of group work. If getting all group members together to socialize—and taking photos as proof of that interaction—were made part of the assignment itself, it would allow them to build trust while effectively gathering input. In fact, while taking the “Psychology of Human Relationships” course I’m currently enrolled in, I’ve experienced firsthand just how important close interactions among group members are. After our groups were first assigned, we had only exchanged somewhat awkward greetings in our group chat. However, thanks to an assignment given by our professor, we managed to coordinate our schedules—despite the difficulty—and went out for drinks. While drinking, we shared stories about our daily lives and personal interests—topics we wouldn’t normally discuss during class—which fostered a sense of belonging and affection for our group. Since then, we’ve continued to meet and socialize even outside of class, and we all participate enthusiastically in group assignments without exception. One of our members, who doesn’t usually attend classes regularly, mentioned that through the group activities where we all got together, they got to know each other better and developed a sense of responsibility. They said they started working hard on group assignments simply because they felt bad letting their teammates down. Therefore, as the saying goes, “A drink is better than a hundred messages,” if activities that foster camaraderie among group members were made mandatory as assignments, it would prevent free-riding and lead to better group dynamics.
If we adopt team-building assignments as the primary solution and implement several other measures in parallel, this will lead to better group work outcomes. First, to further enhance the sense of personal responsibility gained through team-building, roles must be clearly assigned from the outset. When performing the same task as a group, an individual’s sense of responsibility may diminish due to the presence of others. To prevent this kind of social loafing, roles must be assigned to clarify individual contributions. According to Garret Hardin’s paper introduced in ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, the “it’s just me” mentality—where individuals free-ride while others comply with regulations to significantly increase their own gains—leads to great tragedy. Therefore, by assigning roles so that it is clear who did what and who did not, and by clearly communicating what tasks each individual is responsible for, we can prevent social loafing. Furthermore, by demonstrating that a task can never be completed if one person does not contribute, we can help group members recognize their individual importance and foster a sense of responsibility. In conclusion, clearly assigning roles in group activities will further enhance the sense of responsibility fostered through camaraderie among group members and effectively prevent free-riding. As another complementary measure, it would be advisable to conclude group activities with peer evaluations among group members. Rather than having a single group leader evaluate the members or the professor evaluating based solely on the final product, ensuring fairness can be achieved if group members evaluate one another while maintaining anonymity. If a student receives low scores from the majority of group members and the total score falls below a certain threshold, it would be appropriate to impose a penalty on that student’s grade. Based on the theory of the “selfish gene”—which posits that organisms evolve in ways that yield the most favorable outcomes for themselves—humans do not wish to receive low grades that are detrimental to their own interests. Therefore, implementing peer evaluation among group members would not only address the shortcomings of group-building assignments—which rely solely on individual responsibility and conscience—but also provide an incentive for students to avoid free-riding, even if only for their own benefit.
It can be said that living rightly is synonymous with acting altruistically. Therefore, preventing free-riding can be viewed as presenting a way to live rightly. In this paper, while proposing alternatives, I have presented “reasons for living rightly” based on evidence. Consequently, the search for measures to prevent free-riding can lead to a discussion of whether there are valid reasons for living rightly. To clearly understand this topic, we must first understand what it truly means to live rightly. The term “right” means that words, thoughts, or actions are correct and proper, without deviating from reason or norms. Living rightly does not mean one must always live virtuously while making sacrifices. Rather, it means living in a way that upholds one’s convictions without shame, under the lens of ethical standards. In this regard, I argue that there is a reason to live rightly because doing so increases the likelihood of forming socially advantageous relationships from an evolutionary perspective and provides psychological satisfaction to the individual.
To support the argument that living righteously is evolutionarily advantageous, it is necessary to understand the concept of a “meme.” According to Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’, genes are selected in ways that favor their own replication and survival; a “meme” is a concept introduced to extend this idea to the cultural dimension and explain the units through which culture is transmitted and replicated. One example of a meme is the set of values that serve as the standard for proper human behavior. Over time, societies have transmitted values—considered beneficial and correct in the long run—to their members based on accumulated experience. This implies that behaving properly can yield long-term benefits within social relationships. The fact that a person’s good or bad deeds are transmitted to and influence others can also be seen as another example of a meme. Since humans are social animals, they live by interacting with others within society. Therefore, the evaluations of those around them constantly influence human life. According to the repeat-reciprocity hypothesis explained in ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, humans are capable of cooperative behavior in anticipation of future rewards. Most companies prefer employees who strictly follow rules and lead upright lives, and colleagues also prefer coworkers who hold sound values. Thus, living righteously instills trust in those around you and, as a result, enhances your personal reputation, increasing the likelihood of leading a more comfortable social life. For example, if a coworker asks me to prepare some materials at work, I would make a small sacrifice and act altruistically, even if there is no immediate benefit for me. This is because the likelihood that they will return the favor when I later ask them for a favor will increase, and I do not want to leave a bad impression by refusing their request. Conversely, according to the “aesthetics of retaliation”—an extension of the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis—people may tend to retaliate against or punish others for wrongdoing, even if they will never meet again or stand to gain nothing personally. As seen in the “birds of a feather flock together” hypothesis—which suggests that no one will remain around a person who acts selfishly—those who do not live righteously are likely to face disadvantages in their social relationships. Therefore, we can conclude that “living righteously” may offer certain evolutionary advantages.
By living righteously, we gain not only evolutionary benefits but also psychological satisfaction. Alan Lux’s study, which surveyed thousands of volunteers to investigate the relationship between helping others and emotional and physical health, reported that many volunteers experienced positive emotions, satisfaction, and vitality after helping others. This phenomenon is called the “Helper’s High.” However, rather than viewing the Helper’s High as a definitive effect that manifests identically in everyone or generalizing it to specific metrics, it is more appropriate to understand it simply as a correlation between acts of helping others and positive emotions. People can experience positive effects—such as a sense of emotional fulfillment and reduced stress—while helping others. Furthermore, by acting righteously, humans can free themselves from the mental anxiety stemming from wrongful actions, such as lying or harming others. Living righteously strengthens one’s self-belief and provides the strength to overcome adverse situations. In this way, people affirm their self-worth and find inner peace through righteous behavior.
In this essay, based on evolutionary, statistical, and empirical evidence, the idea that fostering camaraderie among group members can prevent free-riding led to the argument that there is a reason to live righteously. We concluded that there is a reason to live righteously because doing so leads to a happier life and, in the long run, can be advantageous within social relationships. The repetition-reciprocity hypothesis and the “birds of a feather flock together” hypothesis were also utilized in this process. Thus, it became clear that an evolutionary perspective can be applied not only to human history but also to daily life and our values. However, it is dangerous to judge everything from this single perspective. As Stephen Jay Gould argues in ‘Full House’, humans may not have evolved in a direction that was advantageous for evolution, but rather may have taken on their current form as a result of random mutations and selection. Even from this perspective, the debate over whether there is indeed a reason to live righteously must continue.
