In this blog post, we’ll examine the causes of free-riding in group projects and ways to address it. We’ll then extend this discussion to social relationships to explore whether it’s necessary to live righteously even in situations where we aren’t directly harming others.
A long time ago, a drama based on the webtoon “Cheese in the Trap” aired. In it, there is a scene where group members gathered to work on a group project but kept putting off their contributions. The protagonist ends up completing the assignment alone due to the uncooperative group members, but receives a D grade because the result was poor. It was a situation in which any college student would likely feel sympathy for the protagonist. Additionally, some people felt it was too harsh that a student who had no choice but to complete the assignment alone due to the uncooperative group members received a D. Not only in dramas but also on social media, posts condemning “free-riders” in group projects are constantly being posted. Furthermore, there have been various opinions on how to solve this free-rider problem. In this article, we will discuss not only “how to prevent free-riding” but also, more broadly, “whether there is a reason to live righteously.”
The term “free-riding” used in this article refers to the behavior of a group member who fails to fulfill their assigned tasks because they assume someone else will do their part for them. There are several reasons why free-riding occurs. First, it happens when a student believes that even if they don’t do their part, someone else will cover for them. If someone drops out, it inevitably causes disruptions in the assignment process. If the other group members want a good outcome, they have no choice but to take on the free-rider’s share of the work. The second reason is when the free-rider is a student who genuinely has no interest in their grades. These are people who don’t care at all if their absence causes delays in the project, leads to poor results, or results in a lower grade. This is because the majority of them aim only to earn enough credits to graduate without any issues.
Ultimately, the free-riding problem becomes an individual issue. No matter what measures are taken, it seems difficult to prevent free-riders if they are determined to continue free-riding regardless of the outcome. It becomes even more difficult to stop those who do not care if they receive a low grade as a result of free-riding. Furthermore, no matter how harsh a grade is given to the free-rider, the fact remains that the sacrifice of other group members is inevitable. In fact, free-riders are people who do not care about their grades in the first place. Even if a free-rider is given a low grade, if they often end up with a C or a D anyway, this may not have a significant impact on them. This is because their sole goal is to earn the credits required for graduation, regardless of their individual grades. If they happen to receive a good grade thanks to the sacrifices of their group members, that’s simply a fortunate circumstance; for the vast majority, the ultimate goal remains solely the completion of the credits required for graduation. Therefore, a more effective solution is needed.
The best approach, of course, would be for the professor to evaluate and judge all aspects of the group members’ participation and the progress of the assignment, but this is not a realistic or feasible method. Therefore, considering the practical realities, I believe the most effective solution is to prevent free-riders from meeting the graduation requirements they are aiming for. In courses where group projects are mandatory, free-riders should be assigned an “F” grade, and enrollment restrictions should be imposed on courses that require group projects for a certain period. Of course, this may cause some inconvenience to the group members at the time the free-riding occurs, but it will help prevent future harm. This can be considered in connection with the “Repeated Reciprocity Hypothesis” explained in Choi Jeong-gyu’s ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’.
The core strategy described in the “Repeated Reciprocity Hypothesis” is the “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” strategy—that is, the TFT strategy. The TFT strategy is based on the “principle of reciprocity,” which involves starting the game cooperatively and then responding to the opponent’s cooperation with cooperation, and to their defiance with defiance. In other words, the TFT strategy is a conditional cooperation strategy. It gained attention as a strategy that maintains cooperation and reciprocity in repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma games. If the TFT strategy is applied to group projects, free-riders will become the betrayers, while cooperative group members will become the friendly opponents. And the game itself will be the class in which the group project takes place. Furthermore, according to game theory, mutual cooperation can create a situation that benefits everyone.
When applying the TFT strategy to a group project as a game, all group members must cooperate to achieve the best results. However, if someone acts like a free-rider and pursues only their own benefit, countermeasures may be taken. In this context, “countermeasures” refer to the sanctions mentioned earlier as a solution. While in TFT strategies the parties involved retaliate directly, in group projects, students lack the means to retaliate directly; therefore, the professor can be seen as the one imposing sanctions. The person subject to sanctions is barred from participating in the next game—that is, future group project sessions. Consequently, only those who are cooperative will remain to continue the group project, leading to a satisfactory outcome for everyone.
The TFT strategy is based on the premise that the game must be repeated. If the group project is a one-time event, there would be no way to prevent free-riding. This is because even if the student is barred from taking the course in the future, they will not face any disadvantages from free-riding if they no longer have to participate in group projects. Therefore, additional measures—such as assigning an “F” grade—should be implemented to incentivize participation even in the final group project.
This strategy cannot prevent every free-rider, as free-riding is ultimately a matter of individual behavior. However, if free-riders are consistently excluded from future group projects, the negative impact—though significant at first—is likely to diminish over the long term.
We have explored the possibility of resolving the free-rider problem in group projects through the TFT strategy. However, when applying the free-rider problem beyond group projects to a larger collective—society—there appear to be issues with applying the TFT strategy. According to the TFT strategy, one must respond with retaliation against those who act maliciously. In group projects, there was a figure—the professor—who could impose retaliation or sanctions. However, this is not the case in society. Unless one harms others or breaks the law, the means available for personal retaliation are limited. The situation for free-riders would also be somewhat different. In group projects, because only a small number of people participate, the harm caused by a single non-participant is felt acutely by that small group. However, society consists of tens of millions of people. If one person acts as a free-rider, the harm inflicted on others may not be particularly noticeable. Considering this situation, one is led to wonder whether there is a “reason to live righteously” even when one does not directly harm others or break the law.
First, before considering what it means to live righteously, a few assumptions are necessary. In this article, I will assume—unlike in situations such as free-riding, which directly harms group members—that “living righteously” or “living unrighteously” does not cause direct harm to members of society. We assume that cases where direct harm is inflicted on others or where the law is significantly violated can already be addressed through legal channels. In this essay, we will define “living rightly” as acting to help others at the expense of one’s own interests. Furthermore, we will define “living wrongly” as acting solely for one’s own benefit within the bounds of the law. For example, let’s suppose someone is in danger. In such a case, helping the person in danger can be considered “living rightly” according to social norms. However, failing to help may result in social condemnation but does not constitute a legal violation. We will refer to this as “living wrongly.”
As illustrated in the example above, living rightly primarily means living in a morally responsible way by helping others and being willing to make concessions for their sake. In today’s society, sacrificing for others is indeed regarded as a virtue. However, even though living rightly is a recommended moral value, from an individual’s perspective, refraining from sacrificing for others in order to pursue one’s own interests may be a advantageous survival strategy. Since this does not directly harm others, one faces no external punishment even if one chooses not to make such sacrifices. In fact, from an individual’s perspective, living righteously can be a strategy that puts one at a disadvantage for survival, because helping others always requires a certain degree of sacrifice. Therefore, from the perspective of survival strategy, acting strictly in one’s own interest may be more advantageous.
Based on this, the argument presented in this essay regarding the question “Is there a reason to live righteously?” is that “there is no need to do so.” Of course, if it is a group project, one must participate without fail, because failure to do so would cause direct harm to other group members. However, society is different. As assumed in this essay, it is the author’s view that there is no need to sacrifice oneself for others as long as one does not cause harm to them.
However, the argument above does not mean that acting solely for one’s own benefit is acceptable; rather, it asserts that sacrifice for others should not be treated as an absolute value. Even if someone acts solely for their own benefit, as long as they do not cause harm to others, we should not force them to make sacrifices based on moral values. Of course, we should not force those who regard sacrifice as a higher value to act solely for their own benefit either. The point is that as long as a person takes responsibility for their actions, they must be respected regardless of the values they hold. This is because forcing someone who acts solely for their own benefit to make sacrifices for others could, in turn, cause harm to that person.
We have examined the question, “Is there a reason to live righteously?” based on the assumption that one does not harm others. In summary, when we define living righteously as making sacrifices for others, it does not necessarily follow that one must live righteously. Whether to help others or pursue one’s own interests is fluid and depends on one’s circumstances. This is because what constitutes a beneficial action is not absolute but relative to one’s specific situation. Few people would turn a blind eye to a family member, relative, or close friend in distress. In such cases, it is likely because they judge that helping their family or friends overcome their difficulties will ultimately bring them greater benefit.
Of course, from the perspective of society as a whole, it may be desirable for everyone to act correctly. However, since moral values are not absolute, we should not impose the same standard of “correct behavior” on everyone. The criteria for helping others can vary from person to person. Therefore, as long as one does not step outside the boundaries of the law—which is established by the consensus of society’s members—the decision of whether to help others or choose one’s own interests should be left to the individual.
