In this blog post, we’ll discuss how to prevent free-riding and why we should live righteously, while applying the lessons learned from group projects to our lives.
If you search for “group project,” the first related result that appears is a video titled “The Brutal History of Group Projects,” created by the TV comedy show “SNL (Saturday Night Live).” This video depicts a group leader struggling to complete a group project. Additionally, in the drama “Cheese in the Trap”—based on the popular webtoon of the same name and set in college life—an episode featuring senior Sang-cheol, who causes trouble during group projects, is a major plot point. College life is a microcosm of society before entering the workforce, a place where you meet a wide variety of people. In particular, group projects provide many opportunities to encounter diverse, sometimes eccentric, and perhaps even strange individuals. In group projects, you’ll often encounter free-riders who, every time the group meets, claim their parents are sick, their phone is broken, or some other unspeakable excuse. Group projects are assignments where all members share the workload to produce a single completed project and receive a collective grade. However, free-riders know the project will be completed anyway, so they try to do nothing while simply adding their names to the finished work. But is there a reason we shouldn’t free-ride on group projects? If we view group projects as a microcosm of life, is there a fundamental reason why we shouldn’t free-ride and should instead live righteously in our lives?
We can define righteous behavior as actions that benefit others even if they do not benefit oneself. If an action benefits both myself and the other person, there would be no need to hesitate. The key point here is altruistic behavior—actions that benefit others even though they do not benefit me. Here, we can consider two types of benefits. One is short-term, direct, and material; the other is long-term, indirect, and psychological or moral. We can call the former “active benefits” and the latter “passive benefits.” The altruistic actions we’ve considered—those that do not benefit ourselves—typically do not yield active benefits. However, such altruistic actions can still yield passive benefits. Therefore, while one might argue that there is no need to act rightly simply because it does not provide active benefits to oneself, I believe there is a reason to live righteously precisely because it yields passive benefits.
Before discussing the reasons for living righteously, let’s first consider why free-riders emerge in group projects and how to prevent them. First, the only way for all group members to achieve a good result in a group project is for everyone to participate diligently. However, from my perspective, it may be advantageous to free-ride regardless of whether others work hard on the project or not. This is because, if others do not work hard, I would have to shoulder all the burden myself if I do not free-ride. In other words, in the “group project” game, free-riding becomes a dominant strategy. Therefore, an economically rational individual would choose free-riding as the best strategy to complete a group project, which is a type of public good. So, let’s consider ways to prevent free-riding for the sake of the many college students who suffer from group projects. Preventing free-riding is closely linked to eliminating the reason to act unethically. Therefore, let’s devise a method to minimize the active benefits gained from free-riding and maximize the passive benefits gained from not free-riding.
Courses involving group projects typically last one semester, or four months. During this period, rather than creating altruistic people, let’s consider ways to encourage behavior that appears altruistic. According to the book ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, there is a hypothesis known as the “repeated reciprocity hypothesis” regarding the emergence of altruistic humans. This hypothesis explains that the reason humans engage in altruistic behavior even at their own expense is because they expect the game to continue and anticipate future rewards for their altruistic actions. For this hypothesis to hold true, there must be a belief that the relationship with the other party will continue. In group assignments, students should not know when the assignment will end. Therefore, the professor could choose not to announce the number of group assignments in advance. Additionally, since the effects of reward or retaliation resulting from one’s own actions diminish as the number of group members increases, the size of each group should be limited to three or four members. Let’s assume that all members of a group want to earn good grades.
Based on this fundamental assumption, the method I’ve devised to prevent free-riding is to ensure that free-riding affects one’s individual grade. However, the professor likely assigned the group project because they wanted group members to collaborate and produce a final product. Therefore, the grade for the group project itself is not assigned on an individual basis. Instead, a separate individual assignment is given after the group project. This individual assignment is designed to be manageable and to require assistance from group members. For example, it could be structured to require the results of a simple survey conducted by a group member. Whether or not a group member chooses to help is left entirely up to their own discretion, based on their own assessment of each member’s contribution to the previous group project. This way, group members who actively participated in the group assignment can receive extra credit by getting significant help from their peers on the subsequent individual assignment, while free-riders will be unable to earn a good grade on their individual assignment. The results of this individual assignment are designed so that the professor can evaluate them meaningfully. Therefore, the penalties for low participation in the group assignment are defined as “the professor finding out” and “a low grade on the individual assignment.” Going a step further, we add a punishment that is particularly severe even for those who are not highly concerned about their grades. Interpersonal relationships play a major role for most people. We leverage this by allowing the punishment to affect an individual’s reputation. Individual assignment grades are posted on an online site or in a space accessible to all students, revealing the level of active participation in the group project. Students who did not receive help from their group members on the individual assignment will be publicly identified as having attempted to free-ride. When students enter a public space to check their scores, they are likely to remember others—especially those with very high or very low scores. Free-riders seek to put their names on others’ achievements while putting in less effort, but they would not want this to become known to people outside their group. In this way, I have devised a method to prevent free-riding in group projects using the “repeated reciprocity hypothesis.” So, how should we address free-riding in the various challenges of life, rather than just group projects? Can it be prevented? Returning to the main point, is there a fundamental reason why we shouldn’t free-ride in life?
I believe there is a clear reason why we should live righteously. We must live righteously. Reflecting on whether we should avoid free-riding in society—or, more broadly, whether there is a reason to live righteously—is somewhat different from a group project. A group project lasts only four months, but life goes on for a long time, with no end in sight. The world is not a group project, and it is certainly not a game determined by numbers. Various situations exist, and the assumptions we made may not apply. That is why, in the case of the group project, we could consider only the long-term benefits among the negative externalities. However, real life is more complex, and there are various negative consequences in addition to long-term benefits.
First, as revealed in the method for preventing free-riding in the group project mentioned earlier, we can consider long-term benefits. Relationships in life aren’t just about meeting people to play a game and only interacting while playing. No matter how we met, no one knows when we’ll meet again.
In other words, it is a game with a high probability of repetition and is highly unpredictable. Therefore, I cannot know how my actions today will affect me in the future. In a life full of variables, showing kindness to others is closely tied to my future benefit and can ultimately be seen as the path that serves my own interests. This may feel less like altruistic behavior and more like behavior that merely appears altruistic. However, the long-term benefits derived from altruistic behavior are also one of the reasons we should live righteously.
Second, humans are social animals. As we considered in the game, we do not live solely by seeking net benefits—the sum of gains and losses—but rather, we are human beings who sometimes live in harmony with others even while suffering losses. People live alongside others, and in today’s era of globalization—where the entire world is connected by rapid transportation and even faster internet thanks to advances in science and technology—it is difficult to think about one’s own life while excluding relationships with others. Furthermore, human relationships are not built solely on the exchange of material benefits; the emotions we feel toward one another and the spiritual bonds we share also play a significant role. We engage in non-economic, altruistic behavior not merely to gain a direct benefit from another person, but because we wish to share a significant portion of our emotions with them and understand them. While such altruistic behavior may seem inefficient in the short term, it is understandable within the context of relationships I value. The benefits derived from these relationships are, in fact, one of the indirect benefits that altruistic behavior provides. As mentioned earlier, since interpersonal relationships constitute a major part of life, such behavior does not end with me but can continue to unfold.
Third, our society is governed by laws and regulations, culture and customs, as well as the social censure that accompanies them. In ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, such behavior is described as “retaliation,” which is enforced through socially agreed-upon laws and regulations. According to the book, people vary in how they treat others and the degree of tolerance they show depending on the culture and customs of the society to which they belong. People must live righteously in accordance with the norms of their society—its laws, regulations, culture, and customs—to avoid violating them. In other words, there is a reason to live righteously in order to avoid suffering harm.
Finally, humans are not computers or robots; they are beings capable of communication and characterized by strong reciprocity. Humans possess self-esteem, a moral compass, and a sense of self-satisfaction. These qualities can be revealed through altruistic behavior. When I asked my father, “Is there a reason to live righteously?” he replied without a moment’s hesitation that there was. He explained that it was because he wanted to leave his mark on history without fear, and also because he hoped his life would serve as a guiding example for his beloved children and future generations. Finally, he cited the sense of self-respect one gains when living a righteous life, as opposed to living a life of wrongdoing. None of these three reasons pertain to direct material gain or convenience in daily life. However, humans derive a sense of self-respect and self-satisfaction from altruistic actions, and this provides a driving force no less powerful than material gain. Watching the life my father lived, I, too, came to believe that living righteously is the right thing to do. There are clear reasons for this, and my own children will likely look up to me and conclude that living righteously is the right thing to do. For me, the reason lies in the life my father lived—a life spent always considering those weaker than himself and living righteously. Of course, these are deeply personal reasons, but I believe that such individuals come together to form a society. These moral and psychological benefits—that is, spiritual benefits—also serve as reasons to live righteously.
People might look at altruistic individuals and think, “They’re living like fools.” Most people may feel they’re always at a disadvantage, and in a society where individualism is so prevalent these days, they might view thinking of others as inefficient and foolish behavior. They might even think that “living righteously” is just an outdated phrase that belongs only in morality textbooks. However, there are clear reasons why we should live righteously. As mentioned earlier, first, unlike a game, we can never know the end of the world, and predicting future events is far more difficult. There is a reason to act altruistically even for the sake of our future selves. Second, human relationships occupy a large part of people’s lives, and altruistic behavior is essential in relationships built on empathy with others. Third, the society we live in is governed by laws, regulations, culture, and customs, and it is difficult to commit illegal acts that these prohibit—even at the risk of facing social condemnation. Finally, humans are not robots but beings with self-respect. Although this is a deeply personal reason, just as my father did, I, too, have a reason to live a life I can be proud of. Living righteously means giving up a little of the benefits—material or short-term gains—that people tend to prioritize. However, I believe that passive benefits are just as valuable in our lives as active ones. In the rest of my life, which may end at any moment, I will keep these reasons close to my heart and live without shame—perhaps in a way that is economically unwise and inefficient, yet I will live like a fool nonetheless.
