In this blog post, I’ll explore the meaning and justification of altruistic behavior through the “free-riding” problem in group projects.
In college classes, group projects are assignments that students don’t necessarily welcome with open arms. On the surface, they may seem like a form of collaboration where students share the burden of tackling difficult tasks together, but in reality, they harbor various problems. Among these, the most common problem is the “free-rider” issue. As the term suggests, a free-rider is someone who does not properly participate in group activities but reaps the same rewards by capitalizing on the efforts of other group members. Since it involves reaping rewards without any effort, free-riding is bound to be a sweet temptation.
I, too, have experienced the temptation of free-riding. In a writing class during a summer session, we were assigned a group paper, and our group consisted of four people. One of the members, the oldest among us, was in a situation where he absolutely had to get a good grade due to personal circumstances. He approached the assignment with a strong sense of responsibility and worked harder than anyone else; seeing this, the other group members naturally fell into the complacent mindset of thinking, “He’ll take care of everything.” I was no exception. In the end, the three of us—excluding him—chose to free-ride, and our group work became little more than individual efforts in name only. Fortunately, the course graded students based on peer evaluations, and as a result, we all received different grades.
This phenomenon of “free-riding” isn’t limited to college classes. It commonly occurs throughout society wherever group life takes place and stems from an attitude that prioritizes individual gain. Moreover, the temptation to free-ride is quite sweet; in fact, it can even make those who don’t free-ride appear foolish. However, if everyone makes only selfish choices, society will gradually lose trust and cease to function as a community. That is why we need institutional mechanisms to curb free-riding. Just like the peer evaluation system among group members mentioned earlier. But the more fundamental question we must consider is whether we have a reason to avoid free-riding even without such external enforcement mechanisms. Where does the moral obligation to resist this sweet temptation and act altruistically come from?
First, it is important to understand why free-riding occurs in group activities. To do this, let’s use a simple game-theoretic approach. In group activities, individuals can choose to either “participate” or “not participate” (free-ride). Let’s assume that participating requires an effort of -1 and yields a reward of 2. On the other hand, free-riding requires no effort, but the individual still gains 1.5 thanks to the group’s collective effort. In this scenario, from an individual’s perspective, gaining a net benefit of 1.5 without any effort seems like a more advantageous choice than expending effort (-1) to gain a net benefit of 1. However, from the group’s perspective, it is more desirable for all members to participate and share in the high outcomes together. Ultimately, to reduce free-riding, it is necessary to either increase the rewards for participation or reduce the benefits gained from free-riding.
The most commonly used method is to introduce a peer evaluation system among group members that reflects individual contributions. Instead of awarding the same score to the entire group, each member evaluates the others, and the results are factored into the final grade, thereby “punishing” free-riders. From an individual’s perspective, this mechanism ensures that free-riders cannot receive the full group score—in other words, they suffer a tangible loss. By limiting the options available, this can certainly be considered an effective solution. However, this approach also has several limitations. In particular, in classes where relative grading is applied, there is room for malicious evaluations to occur. For example, a group member might give a low evaluation to lower another member’s grade, regardless of their actual contribution, and if such manipulation occurs frequently, it can ultimately harm the entire group.
To minimize these side effects, peer evaluations need to be conducted repeatedly rather than just once. Typically, peer evaluations are conducted only once after an assignment is completed—and often anonymously—which can encourage abuse. However, the situation changes if evaluations are conducted repeatedly on a weekly basis or at specific intervals, and the results are shared as feedback with the entire team. If repeated evaluations are announced in advance, group members will be more cautious in their evaluations of one another, and a cautious atmosphere will develop because malicious evaluations could affect the next evaluation. This approach, which casts a “shadow of the future,” can minimize side effects while maintaining the effectiveness of preventing free-riding, making it a highly practical and efficient solution.
So, moving beyond university group projects, why should we act altruistically in general situations where there are no sanctions or rewards? In other words, what is the justification for not free-riding? To answer this question, we first need to rethink the definition of “altruistic behavior.” Altruistic behavior is commonly regarded as the opposite of selfish behavior. Selfish behavior is defined as pursuing one’s own interests exclusively without considering the interests of others, or securing one’s own benefits at the expense of others. Altruistic behavior, on the other hand, can be defined as acting to benefit others regardless of one’s own interests, or even at one’s own expense.
However, there is a contradiction here. How broadly should we define “others”? For example, suppose someone puts aside what they truly want to do and chooses a stable job to support their family. Since they made this choice for their family, they might appear to be an altruistic person. However, if they prioritize their family even to the point of harming others in a crisis situation, can they truly be considered altruistic? This ultimately demonstrates that if the concept of “altruism” is limited to a “close circle” such as family or friends, it can ultimately be interpreted as an extended form of selfishness.
Therefore, truly altruistic behavior must be based on a universal perspective that considers others with whom one has no direct vested interest—that is, society as a whole or humanity as a whole. Only actions stemming from a humanitarian or philanthropic perspective can be defined as truly altruistic.
The answer to why such altruistic behavior is necessary must be found in “rightness” itself. In other words, altruistic actions performed without expecting any reward are carried out simply because they are moral—or “because it is the right thing to do.” For example, suppose a person witnesses a child falling onto the tracks at a subway platform and instinctively jumps onto the tracks, risking their own safety to save the child. They did not act out of concern for their reputation or fear of future guilt; they simply did what was “right” in that situation. Such choices are based on values inherent within human nature or on socially accumulated moral intuition, and they are justified in and of themselves.
On the other hand, why should we avoid making selfish choices? It is not merely a matter of morality. Altruistic behavior is a mentally mature action that considers the well-being of others, and as social beings, humans have a duty to pursue spiritual growth. Selfish behavior stems from a narrow perspective that considers only oneself and can ultimately harm the community. In contrast, altruistic behavior is a mature way of life that looks beyond “me” to “us,” and this is precisely the moral responsibility we must uphold as human beings.
In conclusion, refraining from free-riding in group activities is not simply a matter of grades or evaluations. It is an attitude that rejects selfish temptations and pursues the greater values of “rightness” and “spiritual maturity”—an attitude toward life that we should all strive for. An altruistic life that goes beyond personal comfort or gain to consider the well-being of others is the value essential for us to live together in a community, and this in itself is reason enough.
