In this blog post, we’ll explore why we should live altruistically and righteously—even if it means suffering a loss—through the lens of group selection theory and the logic of survival in human society.
From childhood, we’ve often heard adults say, “My child, you must live a good life!” Without ever questioning why we should live “good”—that is, righteously—most of us have come to hold the unconscious belief that we must live righteously. So why must we live righteously? Let’s explore what righteousness is and the reasons why we must live righteously.
First, there are many types of “wrong” behavior. From acts prohibited by law, such as murder or robbery, to failing to give up a seat for someone with mobility issues, or cutting in line even when others are waiting—we generally view these actions as wrong. One of the “wrong” behaviors frequently encountered in college life is “free-riding” on group projects. This refers to the act of reaping the rewards without contributing any effort. So, what causes free-riding?
There are various causes of free-riding, but the three main reasons are as follows. First, when a student is assigned a task but fails to complete it, forcing others to do it instead (lack of initiative). Second, when roles aren’t clearly defined in a group project, leading to someone simply tagging along. Finally, there are cases where a person is unable to perform their assigned tasks due to sudden health issues or unavoidable circumstances (lack of ability).
The best way to prevent free-riding is through active cooperation, where each member voluntarily identifies and carries out their own tasks. However, this is practically nearly impossible. Therefore, introducing institutional mechanisms to enforce compliance increases the likelihood that members will carry out their assigned tasks. While such enforceable systems have the positive effect of curbing members’ deviations, they can also cause stress due to oppression and a sense of reluctance from being forced to do unwanted work, posing a risk of reduced work efficiency or lower quality of output. Consequently, a method is needed to minimize these negative effects and motivate members to perform their tasks voluntarily. It is similar to how, when handling a horse, one uses a whip for mistakes and a carrot for good performance.
The “carrot and stick” approach imposes accountability on team members while simultaneously motivating them to fulfill their assigned roles, thereby preventing free-riding and improving both work efficiency and the quality of deliverables. For example, if a member fails to meet their assigned quota, acts irresponsibly, or engages in behavior that negatively impacts group activities, one “stack” is added to their tally. Depending on the number of accumulated stacks, they face different levels of consequences according to pre-established rules. However, these consequences should not be punitive toward the individual but rather designed to have a positive impact on the team. For example, if a member has one stack, they must bring snacks for the entire team to the next meeting; if they have two stacks, they buy coffee; and if they have three stacks, they treat the team to a meal after the meeting. Using the stack system in this way can reduce free-riding. Even if someone ends up free-riding due to personal circumstances, they will pay a price proportional to the accumulated stacks, instilling a sense of caution and responsibility to be more careful in the future. Furthermore, when a team member’s stacks accumulate and they must pay the price, the others ultimately receive material and psychological rewards—such as getting to enjoy a delicious meal—which can serve as motivation for everyone to fulfill their own quotas. In this way, by applying both coercion and motivation simultaneously, we can improve work efficiency and the quality of the final product.
So why should humans live righteously rather than engaging in selfish behaviors like free-riding? The book *The Emergence of Altruistic Humans* introduces the theory of group selection. This theory extends the concept of natural selection from the individual level to the group level. The group selection hypothesis is particularly useful for explaining why we should live righteously in species like humans, where interactions both within and outside the group are crucial.
To understand this more easily, let’s imagine a world where everyone is programmed to act altruistically from birth. In this altruistic world, people help, care for, and make concessions to one another. However, suppose that one day, a selfish person A—who lacks any sense of altruism—suddenly appears. A exploits the altruism of those around them to pursue only their own interests and does not perform any acts of kindness toward others. Here, we can consider two possible scenarios. The first is the assumption that altruistic people remain altruistic to the end, and the second is the assumption that they learn selfish behavior and gradually become selfish. In the first scenario, the people around A become exhausted due to A’s actions, so A eventually moves to another group and gradually destroys that group as well. In the second scenario, even the altruistic people gradually become selfish, each pursuing only their own interests, and eventually the world becomes filled with selfish people. While selfish behavior may bring immediate benefits, it leads to self-destruction because there will be no one to turn to for help when faced with difficult situations later on. Such a situation leads not to social progress but to decline.
According to group selection theory, the higher the proportion of individuals exhibiting altruistic behavior, the greater the likelihood of withstanding environmental changes or hardships, and ultimately, the greater the likelihood that the group will survive to the end through natural selection. This means that even if selfish individuals exist, a group that continues to act altruistically is more likely to survive than one that does not. Therefore, even if there are selfish people around, living altruistically—that is, living righteously—increases the probability of survival not only for one’s own group but for humanity as a whole. Ultimately, for the sake of humanity’s survival, we must live righteously.
