In this blog post, we’ll examine whether it’s always necessary for individuals to live in accordance with social and moral norms, and we’ll explore the reasons for acting righteously through the example of the “free-rider problem” in group projects.
Answers to the question of what it means to live righteously will vary widely from person to person. However, I believe there would be little disagreement if we define it as “living in accordance with social and moral norms.” So, is there a compelling reason why we must live righteously? Many people would say “yes,” but do people actually always live righteously? Even some criminals would answer “yes” to the question of whether one should live righteously, and we frequently see cases where social and moral norms are not upheld—even if the law, which can be considered the minimum standard of moral conduct, is not violated. So, what is the problem here? If following social and moral norms clearly benefits oneself, there is no real problem with it. However, if acting rightly results in personal loss, should one still act rightly in such situations? In many cases, people seek to gain an advantage by acting slightly—or sometimes seriously—unethically. Consider the phenomenon of free-riding in group projects as an example of this. Free-riding is an act that violates the social and moral norms requiring group members to actively cooperate and share responsibilities while working on a joint assignment. And free-riders—who violate these norms to gain personal advantage—can be found anywhere and anytime. Even free-riders, if asked, “Should we live rightly?” would likely answer “yes” in many cases. In this article, I will analyze this very behavior of free-riding and propose solutions. Based on this, I will once again ask—not just in words, but through actions—‘Is there a reason to live rightly?’
So why do people free-ride? There are broadly two cases. One is because they “cannot” participate normally in the project, and the other is because they “choose not to.” Cases where a member “cannot” participate due to a valid reason—such as a relative’s death—that all group members would agree on are not a problem. Therefore, our focus naturally shifts to those who free-ride by “choosing not to” participate in group assignments. Even among those who “choose not to” participate, there may be reasons such as “it’s a hassle” or “I’m busy with other things” (referring to non-essential matters). However, to put it simply, these individuals are acting “for their own benefit.” The rest they gain by giving in to the hassle, or the benefits they derive from other activities, outweigh the benefits they would receive by participating in the group assignment. Therefore, the method to prevent free-riding must ensure that “the sum of the benefits gained from other activities when absent and the benefits and disadvantages of not participating in the group assignment is less than the benefits gained from participating.” Since it cannot be said that one always suffers only disadvantages when absent from a group project, I referred to both benefits and disadvantages.
The best solution I came up with is the “Free-Rider List and Evaluation of Previous Meetings.” This is a combination of two approaches: the “Free-Rider List” is a broad, course-level method, while “Evaluation of Previous Meetings” is a smaller, meeting-level method. The specific methods are as follows. First, the “free-rider list” method. This method has a prerequisite: for courses that include group activities, each course must have a teaching assistant or tutor who can make objective judgments independent of any individual student. These assistants or tutors randomly select locations where group activities are taking place for observation, ensuring that the roster of every group observed within a single class includes all enrolled students. The observers then evaluate students in the groups they observe who they deem to be free-riders, but do not disclose the results to those students until the end of the semester. By compiling this data for each course, it becomes possible to determine how much each student has free-ridden during the semester, and a list of those who have free-ridden beyond a certain threshold is forwarded to the professor teaching the course the following semester. The professor who receives this list then groups the free-riding students together into a single group when forming groups for that course. The “Evaluate the Previous Meeting” method involves group members evaluating each other’s participation at every meeting, but it combines the evaluation of that specific meeting with the evaluation of the previous one.
This method applies the repeated reciprocity hypothesis, one of the hypotheses of game theory in evolutionary biology. The repeated reciprocity hypothesis states that “when a choice of cooperation or non-cooperation is made in a given situation, this interacts with the other party’s choice and influences both parties’ choices in subsequent, repeated situations.” First, in the case of the “Free-Rider List” method, in courses with group activities this semester, whether a student acts as a free-rider affects their group assignments in the next semester. In other words, even if a student benefits from free-riding this semester, they will be placed in a group with other members who also tend to free-ride next semester and will consequently suffer a disadvantage. If a student free-rides more than a certain frequency this semester, the “free-rider list” increases the probability that the primary choice of group members for next semester’s group activities will be to “free-ride.”
The “Evaluate the Previous Meeting” feature can also be explained using the repeated reciprocity hypothesis. Generally, in group activities, evaluations of mutual participation are limited to the specific meeting or session in question. However, if participants are asked to evaluate both the previous meeting and the current one, the repeated reciprocity hypothesis takes on greater significance. For example, if a student free-rided in the previous session, it would have negatively impacted the mutual participation evaluation for that session, and it would also negatively impact the current “Evaluation of the Previous Meeting.” What sets this apart from existing methods is that it allows for certain retaliation for the previous session right here in this current meeting. Even if the other person free-rided last time but participated actively this time, under the conventional method, it would be impossible to retaliate for the past behavior in the current mutual participation evaluation; moreover, the other person might think, “My participation last time was already evaluated. Therefore, there’s no need for me to do well this time.” However, if we introduce “Evaluating the Previous Meeting,” participants who free-rided last time will be motivated to actively participate in this meeting in order to leave a positive impression and receive even a slightly better evaluation in the “Evaluating the Previous Meeting” process being conducted this time. As a side benefit, even setting aside the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis, this approach allows more time to assess how much the other person’s free-riding in the previous meeting negatively impacted the needs of this meeting, thereby potentially increasing the accuracy of the evaluation. For example, even if someone free-rided at the time, you might have given them 2 points because they did contribute something. However, if you later realize that their contribution was actually quite useless and performed more carelessly than expected, you could give them 0 points in this evaluation.
Of course, one might wonder how “evaluating the previous meeting”—which ultimately combines “the evaluation of that meeting as it was conducted last time” and “the evaluation of the previous meeting conducted this time”—differs from the existing method. This is because, since the evaluation is conducted twice, the value of a single evaluation could be seen as diminished. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that 0.5 + 0.5 = 1. However, humans are cognitively more influenced by events that have occurred recently. Consequently, even if someone “free-rided” last time, they may feel more motivated by a sort of temptation (?) to participate more actively this time and leave feedback. As a result, the value of this session’s participation is perceived as greater than 1 each time—comprising 0.5 for “Evaluating the Previous Meeting,” 0.5 for “Evaluating This Meeting,” and “Posting an Evaluation of the Previous Meeting” +a.
Furthermore, these two methods must be combined. The underlying assumption for both methods is that the observer’s evaluation of group activities and the group members’ mutual participation evaluations must be objective. Therefore, for classes that include group activities, at the end of the semester, the observer’s findings regarding free-riding are disclosed, allowing students to assess the observer’s reliability. However, to protect personal information, this should be expressed as “Meeting at [Location] on [Date] at [Time], [Seat] [Number] free-riding,” so that only the group members who participated in the group activity at that time can identify the individuals involved. Furthermore, the observer’s assessment of free-riding is compared and contrasted with each group member’s self-assessment of participation. Furthermore, for observers deemed trustworthy based on previous evaluations, if a student’s mutual participation rating deviates significantly from the observer’s assessment—to the extent that it exhibits unusual characteristics—the names of those students are also recorded. This is intended, for example, to prevent an artificial increase in mutual participation ratings due to social camaraderie; if, despite the observer’s determination of free-riding, the ratings among group members from the same major are unusually high, this could be an effect of social camaraderie, so their names are recorded. Furthermore, if a student exhibits such “special cases” with a frequency exceeding a certain threshold across multiple classes and semesters, their evaluation is rejected; in severe cases, the student is assigned to a group exhibiting free-riding tendencies—that is, they are placed on the “free-rider list.”
Therefore, this method is most effective when “group activities are repeated multiple times” with the “same group members” over the course of a semester. If the group does not consist of the “same members,” the method of evaluating past meetings cannot be used; and if activities are not repeated multiple times, it may be difficult to ensure the effectiveness of evaluating past meetings or to collect a sufficient number of samples for the “free-rider list.” However, in most courses, groups formed at the beginning of the semester remain intact throughout the term, and even if the sample size is small, accumulating samples for the “free-rider list” each semester will eventually yield a sufficient number of samples. The only drawbacks are that the process may be more complex than the existing one, and that courses involving group activities must have “teaching assistants and tutors who are not affiliated with any specific student group”; however, this should not pose a significant problem as long as the system is set up properly from the outset. As mentioned earlier, observers do not always participate in every group activity; since they are selected at random, this does not place a significant burden on them. Furthermore, when it comes to “evaluating the previous meeting,” most students will likely remember at least the most recent meeting, even if they cannot recall the one before that or the one before that. Even if the previous meeting was too long ago to recall, in such cases, the evaluation of that meeting will be influenced even more by participation in the current meeting; thus, it could actually serve as motivation for the current session. Of course, students who have given up on their grades and have absolutely no desire to participate in group activities might find this unbearable, but that would be true of any method that cannot impose penalties beyond losing credit or facing disapproving glances from group members.
Let’s return to the question mentioned in the introduction: “Is there a reason to live righteously?” In my view, there is no reason to live righteously. We defined “living righteously” as “living in accordance with social and moral norms,” and a righteous act can be defined as one that conforms to those norms. If acting rightly aligns with one’s personal interests, the question of whether one should live righteously is hardly worth discussing. However, even those who answer “yes” to this question often engage in wrongful behavior when acting rightly would result in personal loss; such behavior is, in fact, tantamount to saying, “There is no need to live righteously.” Let’s examine this in more detail.
First, let’s consider the example of a clothing store owner. In this case, the owner treats customers kindly in accordance with the norm of “treating people kindly.” Therefore, the right action is to treat customers kindly, and the wrong action is to treat them unkindly. In this scenario, if the clothing store owner treats customers kindly, sales will increase, and consequently, the owner will gain greater profit than if they had acted wrongly. Therefore, doing the right thing is beneficial, and there is no reason to act improperly. But what happens when the clothing store owner is faced with the norm that “income must be reported accurately”? This is because almost all stores—not just clothing stores, but with the exception of large franchises—prefer cash payments; this is because income is not reported unless a cash receipt is requested when paying in cash. To put it more simply, it’s because they can pay less in taxes by earning unreported income. Thus, some shop owners may engage in tax evasion by failing to report cash sales. So, if we ask them, “Should you live righteously?” would they answer “No”? No. Everyone knows that more people would answer “yes.” But in reality, their actions likely involve as many unethical acts as there are cash transactions in a single day.
Let’s ask ourselves again. It’s not uncommon for us to use a coupon that gives a 1,000-won discount when paying in cash for a food delivery because we’re hungry. In fact, if we have cash on hand, we’d likely want to pay with it to get the discount. Anyone with even a little social experience understands why this results in a discount and why it violates the norm of income reporting. But do we really feel aversion to the fact that the shop owner has benefited from this “improper act,” or do we feel any desire to retaliate against the shop owner? Definitely not. This is precisely a case where there is no retaliation for improper behavior due to a lack of repetition and reciprocity. This is because the shop owner has absolutely no reason to expect any repercussions for failing to report cash income.
Or consider the case of volunteer work. The reason people engage in volunteer work can be said to stem from altruism. That is, unless it’s done for advertising or image management. First, why do people engage in volunteer work even to the point of accepting some degree of personal loss? It is precisely because the benefits an individual receives cannot be limited to the “benefits” we’ve discussed so far. The benefits an individual receives are not simple but can take on various forms—for example, they may be short-term, direct, and material, or long-term, indirect, and psychological. While the term “benefit” is often used to refer to direct and material gains, indirect benefits and a sense of spiritual fulfillment also play a significant role in determining one’s actions. Volunteers, for instance, derive a sense of spiritual fulfillment from their work. And since this is an altruistic act that adheres to the social norm of “do good”—a principle shared by nearly all societies—there is no doubt that it is the right thing to do. But is volunteering absolutely necessary? No, it is not. Some altruistic acts, such as volunteer work, carry no inherent obligation. Even if someone has to stop volunteering due to deteriorating health, or if there are people around us who do not volunteer, we cannot condemn them for it.
Then why do we demand and teach people to “live righteously”? It is because the “right action” of teaching others to “live righteously” aligns with our own interests. By educating and encouraging others—whether our contemporaries or future generations—to live rightly, the benefits we can expect in the future increase. For example, for a law-abiding citizen, raising a “righteous voice” calling for harsher penalties for violence aligns with their self-interest because it reduces the likelihood of being assaulted while walking down the street. On the other hand, for organized crime members who pass down their legacy through generations, such a “right voice” conflicts with their interests. Therefore, whether raising this “right voice” is necessary differs between the two groups.
In summary, we can prevent free-riding by applying the pressure of retaliation against free-riders through repeated “free-rider lists” and “evaluations of past meetings.” However, in some real-life situations, retaliation based on such repetition and reciprocity is not guaranteed, and the only form of retaliation will be that which stems from one’s own conscience. Alternatively, if we consider not only the personal benefits but also psychological well-being or indirect, long-term “invisible” benefits, there was no absolute necessity to act correctly. No matter where one looks, it is clear that many people’s actions contradict the verbal assertion that “we must live rightly.” Furthermore, this observation brings us closer to answering the question, “Is it necessary to live rightly?” I hope that as you read this, you will question the things you’ve taken for granted about our lives and reflect once more on whether we “must live rightly.”
