In this blog post, I’ll examine free-riding as a prime example of selfish behavior and discuss ways to address it through both coercive sanctions and voluntary incentives, while reflecting on why we should live righteously.
From a young age, we are taught that we must live righteously. Most people who consider themselves moral accept this as a given, but is there truly a reason why humans should live righteously? If we merely know vaguely that it is good to live righteously without understanding the reason, we may become confused about the extent to which we should act altruistically when faced with certain situations, and we may easily act based solely on the short-term gains and losses that will affect us personally. In fact, many people engage in behaviors that harm others—such as free-riding or cutting in line—if they believe it will benefit them. Therefore, by discussing solutions to free-riding—a prime example of selfish behavior—and categorizing them into coercive and voluntary approaches, I aim to explore whether there is a reason we should live righteously.
First, we define “right conduct” as behavior that benefits others even if it may result in a loss for oneself; in this sense, it is similar to altruistic behavior. In contrast, selfish behavior involves acting in a way that benefits oneself even if it causes harm to others. In this sense, free-riding is a selfish and wrong action. From the perspective of a student who works hard on group assignments, free-riding is likely a problem they would very much like to see resolved. Since we know that people’s behavior can vary depending on the benefits or losses they anticipate, we believe free-riding can be prevented in the following ways. First, if a student who intends to free-ride is concerned about their grades, we can expect them to reciprocate by putting in more effort if rewards are provided after completing each stage of the assignment, in accordance with the “principle of reciprocity,” which states that favors are repaid with favors. Such rewards could include awarding extra points when the entire group participates actively. Alternatively, rewards could be provided before the assignment even begins. Companies do not hire new employees on the basis of the lowest possible cost because the contract between a new employee and the company is an “incomplete contract”—that is, it is difficult to know exactly what level of results the new employee will produce at the time of signing. In such cases, the amount of effort each individual will exert is not fully determined at the time of the contract or when the team is formed; rather, it can be influenced by the relationships among team members in the actual work environment. Therefore, if team members take time to get to know each other before starting a group assignment, and if individual scores start at the maximum and are reduced based on each person’s contribution, free-riding can be minimized. If a student attempting to free-ride is unconcerned about grades, the problem becomes even more difficult, as grade-based incentives are ineffective. However, the “Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis” can be applied to this issue. This theory posits that participants in a game involving repeated interactions will refrain from pursuing immediate gains and adopt a compromising attitude in order to secure long-term benefits. For example, if students who are likely to interact frequently in the future form teams, the likelihood of free-riding would decrease, as almost no one would want to strain a relationship with someone who is likely to become a future colleague. If there are few students in the course who are likely to interact frequently in the future, a counseling program with the professor could be introduced to foster an ongoing relationship related to the course, thereby creating a situation based on repetition.
All of these methods are involuntary measures that prevent free-riding by either benefiting or penalizing students who attempt to free-ride. When sanctions or rewards are imposed, people have no choice but to change their behavior. However, even without visible sanctions or rewards, shouldn’t there be reasons not to free-ride—or, for that matter, to avoid selfish behavior? Even if my group members wouldn’t suffer significant harm if I were to free-ride, and even if free-riding didn’t benefit me personally, if there were a reason not to free-ride, I could use that reasoning to persuade a friend who is considering free-riding. How can I persuade students by presenting a more fundamental rationale for why they shouldn’t free-ride?
First of all, I believe that everyone has a duty to live righteously. This is simply because the world is a space where we all live together. Let me first give an example of a righteous action I’ve taken. When I find a cell phone, wallet, or other item that someone has left behind in a public place, I make an effort to return it to its owner. I’ve thought about why I do this even though it requires my time and effort. It wasn’t because I was hoping for material reward or the sense of satisfaction that comes from returning the item. The reason I do this is because I empathize with the person who lost the item. Since I get very anxious when I lose something, I act this way out of consideration for the person who must be anxious after losing something important. However, it would be insufficient to view this “ability to empathize with others” as the sole reason for doing the right thing. Ultimately, the reason I engaged in this altruistic act may have been my hope that, by doing so, I could help create a world where even a few more people can recover their lost items with the help of others. This also benefits me.
Ultimately, the reason we should engage in altruistic acts is that they are highly likely to benefit us in return. The benefits derived from right conduct fall into two categories: short-term and long-term. Short-term benefits are benefits in the narrow sense; they can be described as tangible, material gains, such as the solution to the free-rider problem discussed earlier. In contrast, long-term benefits are benefits in the broad sense, referring to spiritual benefits or values. The benefits one gains from altruistic behavior include not only material gains but also emotional benefits, such as feeling good. However, I believe that if altruistic acts create a better world, that in itself is a greater benefit to the individual. Right actions increase social benefits, and these, in turn, benefit the individual. This, too, can be considered a benefit in the broad sense, similar to emotional benefits.
These spiritual benefits or values can, in turn, be divided into innate and acquired aspects. The empathy toward others and the sense of satisfaction after performing a good deed, mentioned earlier, are emotions that fall under the category of innate qualities. On the other hand, holding a vision of a better world—that is, a desirable ideal—and pursuing it can be viewed as an acquired quality that arises from human rational thought. I would like to focus on the benefits derived from this acquired reason. If one’s altruistic actions create a slightly better world, this is a good thing because one also lives in that world. The “world” I am referring to here is not only the world that objectively exists but also the world shaped by one’s own perspective. Since pursuing a desirable ideal is humanity’s ultimate goal, there is a moral imperative to act correctly. If one chooses not to live righteously simply because one does not wish to create a better world, one will always live in the shadow of the better world created by others’ altruistic actions. I believe altruistic acts are akin to the taxes we pay to sustain community life. If you do not live righteously while participating in community life, you cannot actively enjoy the benefits of a better world.
Thinking this way explains many altruistic acts. No matter how much you think about it, there are always people who act righteously even when the personal cost is high. If you’re running late for a school exam and find someone collapsed on the side of the road, you should help them. By offering help, you create a world where people who collapse on the street do not lose their lives thanks to the assistance of others, and this will ultimately benefit you as well. When working in a group, even if all the other members say it’s okay for them to be free riders, the reason you shouldn’t be a free rider is that by not doing so, you help create a world with fewer people engaging in the selfish behavior of free-riding—a world in which you yourself can live.
Humans must live righteously. This is especially true in terms of pursuing desirable ideals, as it ultimately benefits oneself as well. In other words, the benefit lies not so much in the material or emotional rewards received for acting rightly, but rather in the fact that the person who acts rightly creates a better world for themselves to live in. This argument avoids the criticism leveled against the claim that “people act altruistically because of the benefits—such as the sense of pride following a righteous act—that come from emotional rewards,” namely, that few people act rightly with the sole intention of feeling good afterward. Furthermore, this perspective explains why many people go so far as to sacrifice themselves to do the right thing. Establishing a desirable ideal and pursuing it is a life goal unique to human beings. In a society where we live together, looking out for one another can be seen as a duty that all members must uphold in order to draw closer to that ideal.
