Between selfishness and altruism, what choice should we make? We explore the meaning of a righteous life within a community and examine the value of altruistic choices.
There’s a saying: ‘You can see why communism is impossible by looking at university group assignments.’ Group assignments are often required in many classes under the pretext of ‘practicing working on projects with others in society and fostering teamwork and leadership.’ However, they frequently result in distrust and emotional strain in relationships. These negative effects in group assignments mainly stem from free riders. The free rider mentality – thinking “I don’t have to do it; others will” and thus not participating in group activities, forcing the remaining members to work several times harder – is a classic selfish act. While it harms others, it provides short-term personal gain. Selfish behavior may seem advantageous in the short term, but it inevitably causes irreparable damage to relationships in the long run and must be eradicated. Conversely, altruistic behavior may yield fewer immediate benefits than selfish actions, but it can bring greater long-term gains. This demonstrates that we should live altruistically—that is, according to socially accepted ‘right’ principles.
Following this logic, free-riding is an incorrect choice because, while it may benefit the individual in the short term, it damages relationships with group members. Therefore, for optimal group activities, it is crucial to maximize the potential losses from selfish behavior, thereby impressing upon potential free-riders the harm they could incur. To achieve this, first, the principle of small group size must be upheld: ‘Maintain group sizes as small as possible, ideally around 3-4 members, so that the damage reverberating back when one person free-rides is maximized.’ Additionally, the principle of repetition is necessary: conduct group activities through ‘multiple small-scale projects’ rather than one large project per semester. Finally, causality must be ensured by providing appropriate rewards or penalties based on project participation.
Considering all three principles, the optimal group activity to prevent free-riding involves initially assigning groups randomly, then publicly disclosing each member’s contribution to the entire class through presentations after the activity. Here, it is crucial to select tasks where the nature of the assignment clearly highlights individual contributions within the group. For example, instead of writing a paper or report where the contributions of all group members are not clearly discernible, choose tasks like writing a column in a 2:2 debate format where students expressing opposing viewpoints within the group are paired together. This makes the absence of free riders significantly noticeable. In subsequent projects where students self-organize teams, those who contributed highly in previous group tasks are rewarded with higher preference from peers when selecting teams. Conversely, free riders face social punishment through lower preference during team selection.
This system is grounded in the Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis and the Birds of a Feather Hypothesis, which explain human altruism. Altruistic behavior involves sacrificing one’s own interests for the benefit of others or the community. Group activities, where students invest personal time and effort to earn good grades for the collective benefit, can be considered altruistic acts. The Reciprocity Hypothesis posits that if one acts selfishly first, the other will also act selfishly; conversely, if one acts benevolently, the other will reciprocate, leading to better outcomes and thus motivating altruistic choices. In this context, as group activities are repeated multiple times, students naturally become diligent contributors to group assignments because they recognize that the other’s contribution level will be proportional to their own past contributions. However, in the final group task, individual contributions cannot be guaranteed. This is compensated for by the birds of a feather hypothesis. The Birds of a Feather Hypothesis posits that altruistic individuals, aware they suffer losses alongside selfish individuals, seek relationships with other altruists and avoid those with selfish individuals. When forming groups for the final assignment, participants already know each other’s past contributions well. Consequently, those with low contribution levels tend to form groups with others of similarly low contribution, minimizing harm to those with relatively higher contribution levels.
As members of society, we constantly face conflicts between choices for the community and choices for personal gain. From a relational perspective, the reason we should live altruistically is closely tied to the fact that modern society, where we live, is undergoing rapid transformation due to technological advancement. With the advancement of information and communication technology, modern society has entered a hyper-connected society. A hyper-connected society refers to one where people, objects, and online/offline spaces are tightly connected through digital technology—whether one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many. As of 2023, the global internet user population stands at approximately 5.3 billion, with mobile subscribers reaching about 8.2 billion. The adoption of IPv6 has rendered IP (Internet Protocol) addresses virtually infinite. South Korea stands as a powerhouse in the hyper-connected society, boasting an internet penetration rate of 96% and a superfast broadband internet penetration rate of 88%, making it unquestionably the leader. The importance of reputation in such a hyper-connected society is succinctly illustrated by Kevin Bacon’s Six Degrees of Separation, which states that all living organisms and objects are connected by six relationships or fewer one-to-one connections. This principle naturally holds even stronger in a hyper-connected society, significantly influencing the “birds of a feather flock together” hypothesis that altruistic individuals tend to cluster with other altruistic individuals. In previous societies, leaving one’s original group allowed for the acquisition of new social reputation, but in a hyper-connected society, such a reset is impossible. Therefore, individuals with poor reputations are highly likely to suffer long-term harm due to the aforementioned “birds of a feather” hypothesis. Therefore, considering future maximum utility, the choice to maximize one’s personal reputation can be considered the wise choice. Thus, from a social perspective, making altruistic choices is the right thing to do.
Another reason we should live correctly from a relational perspective is closely linked to the costly signaling hypothesis, which explains the emergence of altruistic humans. The costly signaling hypothesis posits that performing altruistic favors for others can emphasize one’s capabilities and secure relational advantage by paying a high price in interactions. An example of this can be found in the Potlatch festival of the Kwakiutl tribe. During the Potlatch festival, the wealthiest person in the village bestows enormous gifts upon all participants, culminating in burning their own possessions in a bonfire. The greater the gifts and the more valuable and expensive items burned, the greater the respect received; consequently, it is common for participants to burn down their entire homes. In modern society, altruistic acts contribute to enhancing the reliability and sustainability of relationships by emphasizing the benefits gained from one’s own relationship with the recipient, rather than seeking dominance within the relationship. The book ‘Other People’s PR’ illustrates the benefits of such behavior using the example of a figure named George Ladd. George Ladd of the United States was selected as the ‘World’s Top Car Salesman’ in the Guinness Book of World Records for 12 consecutive years. His selection as the ‘World’s Top Car Salesman’ stemmed from his own philosophy. He succeeded in the market with his personal philosophy: ‘If one person has 250 relationships, impressing one customer creates 250 potential customers.’ As this example shows, altruistic acts in relationships greatly aid in securing long-term gains. Therefore, choosing altruistic behavior can be considered more rational than selfish acts.
Based on the above reasoning, we understand why we should live a righteous life, sacrificing the short-term gains from selfish acts to secure long-term benefits. However, the world contains selfless individuals who sacrifice their lives for a greater cause or dedicate everything to their beliefs without considering long-term gain. A righteous life encompasses not only calculated actions considering one’s long-term interests but also pure altruism inherent to humanity—acts of self-sacrifice for others without expecting long-term benefit. So why should we live altruistically even in situations that offer no long-term benefit?
On a cold, snowy winter day in 2016, Gwanghwamun Square was filled with people, a scene that would be recorded in history as the ‘hot winter’ of candlelight vigils. The mindset of those who filled Gwanghwamun Square offers an answer to this question. While they gathered there with a clear sense of purpose, that purpose was not solely for themselves. It extended to the community they belonged to and to future generations they might never know. On a personal level, it is obvious that watching the protests on TV from a warm room is far more beneficial in the short term than braving the cold winter to demonstrate. Moreover, even if one protests outside in the cold, the personal benefits gained from participating are minimal. Yet, the reason Gwanghwamun fills with candlelight every Saturday and hosts the world’s largest peaceful gatherings is, I believe, because an innate belief in ‘justice’ and the goodness to act upon that belief exist within humanity, along with a desire to sacrifice oneself to improve the community. Humans possess ‘mirror neurons’ that enable empathy for others’ suffering. Because of this, we naturally feel others’ pain, share their anguish, and strive to alleviate their suffering. This effort to reduce others’ pain and the individual’s good will to improve the community are inherent in human nature and form the most fundamental basis for why we should live a righteous life.
Based on this foundation, we can examine why we should live a righteous life and derive methods to institutionally encourage altruistic behavior in group activities. Altruistic actions benefit the individual as a member of society and a participant in relationships. They also serve as a mechanism that benefits the community and, ultimately, ensures a quality life for future generations. Following this mechanism is desirable for both the individual and the community. Selfish behavior may yield short-term gains, but it tarnishes one’s reputation in today’s hyper-connected society, diminishes one’s value in relationships, and conflicts with personal conscience, leading to human dissatisfaction. Therefore, it should be avoided. We must constantly strive to live rightly: cultivating a positive social reputation increases future potential utility; it places us in a position of advantage in relationships; and, on a personal level, it satisfies our conscience.
