In this blog post, we’ll explore ways to solve the free-rider problem that arises in group projects by examining the evolutionary process behind altruistic behavior in humans, and based on that, we’ll reflect on what it means to live righteously.
“I’m not feeling well today, so I don’t think I can make it,” or “Something came up at home, so I’m out.” If you’ve ever worked on a group project, you’ve probably heard excuses like these at least once or twice. When working on group projects with others, you’ll often encounter so-called “free-riders” who make all sorts of excuses to avoid participating. This free-riding behavior inflicts serious damage on the group’s overall progress and significantly dampens the morale of other group members, making it one of the most serious problems on campus. If this problem were resolved and all group members set aside their self-interest to act altruistically, campus culture could evolve in a more mature direction. However, solutions to this problem are not easily found—so much so that there’s even a saying: “Solve the free-riding problem, and you’ll win the Nobel Peace Prize.” So, is there really no good way to fulfill the long-held wish of millions of college students nationwide to eradicate free-riding? To address this, I will examine how altruistic behavior in humans has evolved in order to find a clue to a solution. Based on this, I will also reflect on whether there is a reason we should live righteously.
Choi Jeong-gyu’s ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’ presents various hypotheses on how altruistic behavior in living organisms, including humans, could have evolved. For example, the “repeated reciprocity hypothesis” posits that altruistic behavior evolved when an individual adopted a strategy of cooperating with those who had previously shown kindness toward them. In other words, individuals gained long-term benefits by cooperating with those who were friendly toward them. Meanwhile, the “group selection hypothesis” explains that altruistic behavior evolved because groups containing many altruistic individuals held an evolutionary advantage over groups composed of selfish individuals, allowing the former to survive. Thus, most of the hypotheses presented in ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’ argue that altruistic behavior ultimately aids the survival of the group, the individual, or the genes, and therefore was able to evolve.
If altruistic behavior has evolved because it ultimately provides a survival advantage, then we could encourage such behavior in group activities by making it beneficial for each individual not to free-ride. For example, we could consider a method of quantifying each individual’s level of dedication and including this score in their personal profile. First, at the end of each semester, group members would evaluate one another to quantify their level of dedication, and these scores would be entered into their individual online profiles. Of course, since these scores constitute personal information—just like a GPA—access must be restricted so that not just anyone can view them. At the start of the next semester, during group formation, the dedication scores would be disclosed anonymously, and students would select who they wish to be in a group with. Those who wish to be in the same group would be assigned to that group first, and the process would be repeated for the remaining students. If this method is implemented, everyone will seek to collaborate with those who have high dedication scores to gain benefits, while no one will want to be in a group with those who have low dedication scores. As a result, students with high commitment scores will select one another to form groups, while the remaining students with low commitment scores will end up in groups with one another.
By quantifying the level of commitment in this way and reflecting it in group assignments for subsequent semesters, free-riders will suffer a significant blow to the benefits they gain. A free-rider in one course will have to work on group projects the following semester in a group composed entirely of other free-riders, and a group of free-riders will achieve significantly lower results than a group of dedicated students. In other words, free-riding will result in a devastating loss during the next semester’s group projects. On the other hand, students who dedicate themselves to group projects will receive high commitment scores, allowing them to be placed in groups with other highly committed students the following semester, thereby reaping even greater benefits. Since the benefits increase the more one commits to group projects, students will strive to contribute, and the number of free-riders will decrease.
This approach takes advantage of the fact that most people seek to maximize their benefits with minimal effort. However, can we say that simply reducing the benefits gained from free-riding and increasing the benefits gained from not free-riding is the best way to prevent free-riding? If people refrain from free-riding after this method is implemented, it is because of the benefits they gain by not free-riding. Therefore, people will only conditionally refrain from free-riding when the benefits of not doing so are significant. Furthermore, there will be those who are indifferent to the magnitude of benefits associated with whether or not they free-ride. In other words, an approach that focuses on the consequences of an action—such as the benefits—cannot be considered the best way to prevent free-riding. Is there, then, a way to provide people with an absolute reason—rather than a conditional one—to avoid free-riding? If there were a way to encourage individuals to act altruistically unconditionally, rather than only when the benefits they gain are significant, that would be the best way to prevent free-riding.
One method of providing individuals with an absolute reason to live altruistically is to appeal to their pure moral motives. In other words, it involves encouraging individuals to follow a categorical imperative based on their pure moral intentions, rather than a hypothetical imperative contingent on specific conditions. For example, a command such as “Act altruistically only if the other person treats you favorably” is a hypothetical imperative, whereas a command such as “Act altruistically because you ought to” is a categorical imperative. So, what method should be used to elicit such pure moral motivation?
Frequent communication between individuals can bring out pure moral motivation. According to the communication hypothesis presented in ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, individuals tend to behave more altruistically when they communicate with one another. The key point here is that engaging in communication does not increase the benefits an individual gains from acting altruistically. In other words, people act altruistically simply because they have communicated, even though their own benefits do not increase but rather decrease. This means that people’s behavior is liberated from the hypothetical imperative: “Act altruistically only when altruistic behavior brings benefits.” In other words, when communication takes place, people’s behavior is freed from the condition of “outcome” and is driven by pure moral motives.
Therefore, the best way to prevent free-riding in group projects is not simply to punish free-riders and reward dedicated members, but to encourage frequent communication among group members so that their pure moral motives are brought to the surface.
For example, one approach is to make group activities mandatory during every class session to increase the frequency and depth of communication. In Professor Kim Gwang-sik’s “Science and Technology Writing” course at Seoul National University, a system was implemented at the time whereby, on days when writing feedback was provided, the remaining groups—those not receiving feedback—were required to engage in group activities and upload a photo as proof. If communication among group members becomes active through such methods, the genuine moral intention to dedicate oneself to group assignments is effectively manifested, thereby resolving the free-rider problem. In this case, refraining from free-riding is driven by “pure moral motivation” rather than being dependent on external factors such as “the consequences of one’s actions”; therefore, this method can be considered the best way to prevent free-riding.
If such methods to prevent free-riding are effectively implemented, leading many students to dedicate themselves to group projects, the average quality of the assignments will rise significantly, and the stress caused by free-riding will decrease. Furthermore, students will be able to smoothly learn the virtues and importance of cooperation, and the campus culture and atmosphere will develop in a more mature direction. In this way, when many people live altruistically and correctly, the group to which they belong and society as a whole are positively influenced. So, can we find a legitimate reason to live correctly based on these facts?
It is true that altruistic and righteous behavior has evolved through various evolutionary pressures, and the more people who live righteously, the greater the benefit to society and the group. Therefore, some might argue that we should live righteously because righteous behavior leads to better outcomes. This perspective—that an action should be performed because it produces good results—is known as the consequentialist perspective. For example, utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill argued that if an action increases the overall utility of society, it should be regarded as morally right and encouraged; this line of thinking is a classic example of the consequentialist perspective. However, this consequentialist perspective fails to answer fundamental questions such as, “Why must an action have good consequences to be right?” If, in a given situation, a self-interested action leads to better results than an altruistic and morally correct one, consequentialism would conclude that the self-interested action should be performed. Therefore, deriving the reason to live rightly from the consequences of an action cannot constitute a reason in an absolute sense.
Does this mean there is no absolute reason to live rightly? The consequentialist perspective takes external factors—such as the consequences of an action—rather than one’s inner self as the starting point for thought. If external factors are taken as the starting point for the reason to live righteously, judgments will always be conditional. For example, when implementing the previously mentioned system that quantifies dedication, if someone decides to dedicate themselves to a group project to gain an advantage under that system, their moral judgment is conditional on “gaining an advantage in next semester’s group projects.” Similarly, if a student acts altruistically toward a friend to make that friend feel good, that moral judgment is conditional on “making the friend feel good.” In this way, when external factors serve as the starting point for judgment, that judgment becomes subordinate to certain conditions and cannot be considered a moral judgment in the absolute sense. Therefore, moral judgment in the true sense must originate from within oneself, not from external factors.
In order to base moral judgment on one’s inner self, one must possess a set of moral standards within oneself that one considers inherently correct. As mentioned earlier, such moral standards can be established through communication with others and may also arise through deep inner moral reflection. Thus, the moral standards that one—as the agent of the action—creates from within can be considered absolute standards that are not subordinate to any other factor. Furthermore, actions performed based on such pure moral motives can be regarded as moral acts in the true sense. In other words, these moral laws residing within oneself can serve as the absolute reason for living rightly. In other words, the reason to live righteously is generated from within oneself; there is no separate, external, universal reason for it.
So far, in our group activities, we have considered ways to solve the free-rider problem and, based on this, examined whether there is a reason to live righteously. Altruistic behavior in humanity has evolved over a long period, and in the course of this evolution, we were able to find clues to solving the free-rider problem. We also confirmed that better outcomes can be achieved by reducing free-riding and encouraging altruistic behavior. Furthermore, we examined whether the consequentialist view—that one should act altruistically and righteously simply because doing so leads to better outcomes—is indeed valid. The conclusion reached through this process is that there is no separate, external, or universal reason to live righteously; rather, each individual must generate their own reason to live righteously from within themselves.
