In this blog post, I’ll examine free-riding from the perspective of the public goods game and reflect on why we should live righteously in situations where individual interests conflict with group interests.
Do you think you’re living a righteous life? Of course, few people would be confident enough to say they live a perfectly righteous life. However, most people would likely answer that they live righteously in their own way—by staying largely within the bounds of the law and striving not to harm others. Here, let’s define “living righteously” not merely as obeying the law, but also in moral terms—that is, acting in accordance with what society expects or does not expect, even if it does not enforce these expectations on the individual. If you think about it, as long as we don’t break the law, we don’t necessarily have to live righteously. This is because we face no legal consequences for failing to give up our seats to the elderly or infirm on a bus, secretly littering on the side of the road, or ignoring people in emergency situations as we walk by. So, why should we live righteously? From here on, I’d like to discuss these “reasons for living righteously.”
First, to explore why we should live righteously, let’s consider group projects. The image that typically comes to mind when people think of group projects in college isn’t a very positive one. This is because you have to work in sync with others, and success depends not on individual effort but on mutual cooperation among group members—which isn’t easy. Furthermore, free-riding frequently occurs in such group activities. In other words, some members receive good grades based on the efforts of others without contributing much themselves. This is clearly not a desirable phenomenon. This is because free-riding—not only in university group projects but also in any activity requiring collaboration or division of labor—has a negative impact on the outcome. So, what methods are available to prevent this kind of free-riding?
The answer becomes clear when we interpret free-riding as a “public goods game.” Let’s understand this through a classic example of a public goods game. Participants in this game initially contribute 1,000 won each. However, they are not required to contribute. Next, the total amount contributed is doubled and distributed equally among the 10 participants. For example, if 5 out of 10 people paid 1,000 won, the total amount collected—5,000 won—is doubled and then redistributed as 1,000 won each to all 10 participants. In this case, the people who did not contribute money at the beginning receive 1,000 won for free. Assuming a person playing this game acts solely in their own self-interest, they are highly likely to choose not to contribute the 1,000 won. This is because, regardless of how much others contribute, it is more beneficial for them to receive the benefit created by others’ contributions without having to pay the 1,000 won themselves. Furthermore, if all participants act this way, no one will end up paying anything—even though they could create an ideal situation where everyone pays 1,000 won and receives 2,000 won in benefits. In economics, this phenomenon is explained as a social dilemma—specifically, the free-rider problem associated with public goods—where individual rational choices lead to collectively inefficient outcomes.
Ultimately, group projects can also be understood through this “public goods game.” All participants—that is, group members—contribute their own efforts and receive a reward in the form of grades based on the results. Just as in the public goods game, this can lead to a social dilemma where all group members become free riders. Therefore, to prevent free-riding in such group projects, we must reduce the incentives for free-riding that arise from the structure of the public goods game. The simplest way to do this is to provide appropriate rewards only to those who have put in the effort. By identifying free-riders through peer evaluation or reporting systems, and limiting the rewards they receive based on the group project’s results, this dilemma can be resolved to some extent. Of course, to supplement this, various measures will be necessary, such as thoroughly dividing roles among group members and using these roles as factors in evaluating the results.
However, this approach does not apply to every situation. This is because complex scenarios can arise, such as when a member completes all their assigned tasks but fails to cooperate properly and instead works on the assignment as they please, or when a member puts in significant effort but is unable to provide substantial help to other group members. In such cases, it is difficult to determine whether free-riding is occurring based solely on peer evaluation. Ultimately, it is difficult to completely eliminate this “public goods” game structure from group projects. So, should we simply pretend to participate while acting to maximize our own benefits? No. Such behavior contributes to the social dilemma and collective failure mentioned earlier. Group projects do not yield good results simply because an individual is outstanding or acts alone. Cooperation and sufficient communication among group members are essential, and free-riding by participants only leads to negative outcomes for these group activities. Even if one gains an advantage through free-riding, it can lower the overall performance of the group project and reduce the benefits for other group members. Therefore, to avoid contributing to such failure, all group members must refrain from free-riding.
Now, let’s return to the original question: why should we live righteously? As we saw in the free-riding example, a society where all group members participate in group projects without free-riding—that is, where everyone acts righteously—can be considered an ideal society capable of avoiding collective failure and maximizing the common good. The key point is that, just as in the group project, the consequences of right and wrong behavior do not apply only to the individual but to all members. In fact, if everyone except me behaves correctly and I do not, I might end up reaping the greatest benefit. However, since this reduces the rewards and benefits resulting from everyone else’s correct behavior, I end up harming everyone else. Just as with group projects, this society is not one in which I live alone but one built through interaction with other members; ultimately, I become the person who brings collective failure upon society. A few instances of improper behavior might be acceptable, but if one consistently fails to act correctly, that person will receive a negative evaluation from the group, which can ultimately lead to significant harm for themselves as well.
There is another reason why improper behavior causes harm to society: it can be contagious. For example, suppose you secretly dispose of trash in a prohibited area. This is clearly improper behavior, and even if it brings you the benefit of having disposed of the trash, it harms everyone else except you. Someone else might see the discarded trash, learn from it, and then dispose of their own trash in the same spot—or somewhere else. This could spread in an instant, turning the area into a garbage dump and potentially leading to an uncontrollable situation that ultimately affects you as well. While this is a slightly exaggerated example, you’ve likely seen news reports several times about festival sites turning into garbage dumps after the festivities have ended. In other words, the spread of inappropriate behavior can, much like the butterfly effect, accelerate collective failure.
So far, we’ve examined how the interests of society ultimately lead to one’s own interests, and how collective failure can result in personal loss. However, there may be cases where the interests of the group as a whole conflict with one’s own interests. This refers to actions that result in immediate significant loss for the individual but benefit the group as a whole. For example, consider blood donation. Socially speaking, blood donation is clearly necessary to save patients’ lives. However, it does not bring direct economic benefit to the individual. Of course, one might need a blood transfusion from someone else if faced with an emergency, but this is a very rare occurrence. Such behavior—which causes personal loss while benefiting only the group—can certainly be considered the right thing to do. This is because, if no one engages in this behavior, it can lead to a social dilemma and collective failure. It is easy to see why this is the case if we consider how many people would lose their lives in emergency situations without blood donations. Therefore, as members of society, we have a moral obligation to engage in this self-sacrificing, morally right behavior. However, unlike the group project example discussed earlier, the justification for this self-sacrificing, morally right behavior is not as strong. This is because a society that merely forces individuals to make sacrifices for the collective can never be a healthy society. Nevertheless, the fact that we have a reason to engage in such righteous behavior remains unchanged. Furthermore, while such self-sacrificing, righteous behavior may be a practical loss for the individual, it can bring a sense of moral fulfillment on a spiritual level.
So far, we have examined the reasons for living righteously through the example of free-riding. If free-riding is viewed as a public goods game, solutions existed, such as not rewarding free-riders based on the outcomes. However, as subsequent discussions have shown, free-riding is considered behavior that should be avoided because it causes harm to the entire group and can lead to collective failure. This aligns with the reason we must live righteously. While unrighteous behavior may temporarily benefit the individual, it harms others and thus reduces social welfare. Furthermore, because such behavior can be contagious, its effects accumulate and may ultimately come back to haunt the individual. Therefore, we must live righteously, and we can view this from the perspective that, evolutionarily speaking, living righteously has served as a crucial strategy for long-term cooperation and survival. Furthermore, even actions where individual and group interests conflict are clearly necessary and righteous behaviors to prevent societal failure. In fact, South Korean society is not so barren that we need to emphasize the importance of living righteously through an essay like this. We live in a society where people know how to be considerate of others rather than thinking only of their own interests, and where we sometimes engage in altruistic behavior for the sake of others. However, on the flip side, we still suffer from various social ills, such as free-riding in group projects. So, why not take the initiative to help build a more advanced society through your own righteous actions?
