In this blog post, we’ll explore ways to prevent free-riding and the reasons for living honestly, applying lessons from group projects to real life.
If you search for “group project,” the video “The Cruel History of Group Projects,” created by the TV comedy show “SNL (Saturday Night Live),” appears first in the related search results. 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 one encounters a diverse range of people. In particular, group projects provide many opportunities to meet various people—some unique, and perhaps even strange. 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 create 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 we should live righteously and avoid free-riding 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 if they do not benefit oneself. 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 because it does not provide active benefits to me, I believe there is a reason to live rightly because it provides 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 good results is if everyone participates diligently. However, from my perspective, free-riding can be seen as advantageous regardless of whether others work hard or not. This is because if others do not work hard, I would have to shoulder all the burden alone if I do not free-ride. In other words, in the “group project” game, free-riding becomes a dominant strategy. Therefore, an economically rational person would choose free-riding as the best strategy to complete a group project, which is a type of public good. With that in mind, 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 reasons for behaving 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, instead of 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, one approach is for the professor not to announce the number of group assignments in advance. Additionally, since the effects of rewards or retaliation from one’s own actions diminish as the number of group members increases, group size should be limited to three or four members. Let’s assume that all members of a group want to get good grades.
Under this basic 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 result. Therefore, the grade for the group project itself is not assigned individually. Instead, a separate individual assignment is given after the group project. This individual assignment is designed to be manageable and requires assistance from group members. For example, it could require the results of a simple survey conducted by a group member. Whether a group member chooses to help or not 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 others on the subsequent individual assignment, while free-riders will struggle to achieve 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 grades. Interpersonal relationships play a significant role for most people. We leverage this to influence an individual’s reputation. Individual assignment grades are posted on an online site or in a space accessible to all students, making it clear how actively each student participated in the group assignment. Those who did not receive help from their group members on the individual assignment will be known to others as having attempted to free-ride. When students visit a public space to check their scores, they will likely remember others, especially those with very high or very low scores. Free-riders may try to put their names on others’ achievements with minimal effort, but they would not want this to be known to people outside the group. In this way, I have devised a method to prevent free-riding in group assignments 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 rightly. We must live rightly. Reflecting on whether there is a reason to avoid free-riding in society—or, more broadly, to live rightly—is somewhat different from group projects. Group projects only last four months, but life is a long journey with no clear 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 group projects, 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. Human relationships in life are not merely connections formed solely for the purpose of playing a game. No matter how we meet, no one knows when we will 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 current actions will come back to me next time. In a life full of variables, showing kindness to others is closely linked to my future benefit and can ultimately be seen as a path that serves my own interests. This may feel more like behavior that appears altruistic rather than truly altruistic behavior. However, the long-term benefits that altruistic behavior provides are also one of the reasons we should live rightly.
Second, humans are social animals. As we considered in the game, we do not live solely by calculating the net benefit of gains and losses; rather, we are beings who sometimes accept losses in order to live in harmony with others. 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 merely composed of material gains and losses; 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 because we seek direct personal gain 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 of altruistic behavior. As mentioned earlier, since human 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, and 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 correctly 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 correctly 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 sense of morality, and a desire for self-fulfillment. These qualities can be revealed through altruistic behavior. When I asked my father, “Is there a reason to live rightly?” he answered without a moment’s hesitation that there was. He explained that it was because he wanted to leave his name in history without fear, and also because he hoped his life would serve as a model for his beloved children and future generations. Finally, he cited the self-respect one feels when living a righteous life, as opposed to living a life of wrongdoing. None of these three reasons directly translate into material gain or convenience. Yet, humans derive self-respect and self-satisfaction from altruistic actions, and this provides a driving force no less powerful than material benefits. Watching my father’s life, I, too, came to believe that living righteously is the right thing to do. There are clear reasons for this, and I believe my own children will look at me and conclude that living righteously is the right thing to do. For me, the reason lies in my father’s life—a life spent thinking of 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 are always at a disadvantage, and in a society where individualism is rampant, as it is today, they might view thinking of others as inefficient and foolish behavior. They might even think that “living righteously” is just an outdated phrase left over from 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 inevitable 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. Though 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 rightly 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, whose end I cannot foresee, I will keep these reasons close to my heart and live without shame—perhaps in a way that is not economical or efficient, yet I will live like a fool nonetheless.
