In this blog post, we explore the individual’s interests within a community through the concepts of ‘living rightly’ and the free-rider problem.

Why is a righteous life important?

Throughout life, we often hear that we “must live righteously.” This is not merely a moral exhortation but one of the values naturally established throughout human history as we lived in communities. Over long periods, humanity survived and developed through communal living. Consequently, the way we live harmoniously within a community became equally important. The reason is that becoming a member of a community allowed individuals to gain far more benefits than they could have achieved alone.
Ultimately, altruistic behavior within a community can be seen not merely as an act for others, but as a strategic choice for the benefits that would return to oneself. As these altruistic actions were repeated and reinforced, we internalized their value through the imperative language of ‘one must live rightly’.
I, too, believe that the phrase ‘one must live rightly’ is not merely an ethical ideal but is critically important as a means of pursuing one’s own interests from a long-term perspective. In other words, we pursue a ‘righteous life’ because maintaining community order and living with a responsible attitude ultimately benefits ourselves. Thus, the ‘reason one must live rightly’ is not fundamentally different from the ‘reason one lives rightly’.
In this context, the problem of “free-riding” in group assignments—a common experience for us university students today—serves as a good example that connects to “living rightly.” Group assignments are activities requiring multiple people to collaborate toward a common goal. However, when some members avoid responsibility and attempt to share the results without contributing effort—a form of ‘free-riding’—it causes conflict within the group and ultimately reduces the efficiency of the entire community.
‘Free-riding’ is a concept mentioned in Olson’s 1965 ‘Theory of Collective Action’ and holds significant meaning in political economy. Humans generally depend on collective entities for survival and value realization. For instance, citizens rely on the state for protection of life and property, while workers expect labor unions to improve working conditions. However, such collective entities do not always possess the will to optimize members’ interests. Instead, individuals face the temptation to avoid costs and reap benefits without contributing to the group. This phenomenon is free-riding.
The more a group’s nature involves producing ‘public goods,’ the stronger the interdependence among its members becomes. Since the consumption of public goods by one individual does not reduce consumption for others, the benefits remain the same even if some members do not contribute. This is when free-riding behavior occurs, where individuals seek to enjoy benefits without bearing any burden themselves. Free-riding can even extend beyond the individual level, occurring within a group or specific faction.
The problem is that if free-riding becomes widespread within a group, it ultimately makes the production of public goods difficult, and the damage falls squarely on all members. Therefore, we must establish various institutional, psychological, and social mechanisms to prevent free-riding, and efforts to avoid free-riding are also necessary.
Thus, the ‘right way of life’ as a means to maximize individual benefit directly connects to the reason why free riding must be avoided. While we often criticize free riding solely from a normative or ethical perspective, in reality, it is also an act that should be avoided from a purely self-interested standpoint.
Now, let’s examine measures to prevent free-riding. Free-riding within a group occurs primarily in two situations: first, in short-term relationships, and second, in long-term relationships. The approach must differ for each case.

Methods to Prevent Free-Riding in Short-Term Relationships

In short-term relationships, where interactions are one-off, immediate regulation is necessary. When group work must be completed within a set timeframe, such as for group assignments, a system that clearly records and evaluates individual contributions is effective.
For example, this could involve explicitly stating each member’s contribution on the final deliverable or assigning individual scores based on their actual contributions. This aligns with the capitalist society’s premise that individual effort directly leads to reward, thereby reducing the temptation to shirk responsibility.
Additionally, regulations that impose clear penalties on free riders can be considered. However, this approach requires the ability to clearly identify who the free riders are to be effective, necessitating its use alongside the contribution recording method mentioned earlier.

Methods to Prevent Free Riding in Long-Term Relationships

Trust and reputation are key in long-term relationships. When repeated collaboration occurs within the same group, past behavior influences future relationship formation. The moment a free rider is identified, that individual risks exclusion from future joint projects or acquiring a negative reputation.
The first approach is to sever future collaboration with individuals or groups that free-ride. Similar cases exist in international politics. For instance, former U.S. President Donald Trump, championing “America First,” designated nations not sufficiently sharing defense costs as “free riders” and declared diplomatic distancing. This can be seen as a diplomatic strategy compelling countries to shoulder greater responsibility.
The second approach involves exposing the free-riding through media or public channels, damaging the individual’s reputation. In long-term relationships, image is a crucial asset, making this approach an effective deterrent.

What is the best way to prevent free-riding?

All these approaches are designed based on the human ‘nature to pursue profit’. That is, they deter free-riding by clearly making individuals aware that their profits could decrease or their losses could increase. However, these approaches also have limitations. If the benefits gained through free-riding outweigh the losses incurred by regulation, or if the regulation proves ineffective, people may still choose to free-ride.

Conclusion: The Intersection of Profit-Seeking and Ethics

Through the free-rider problem, we have seen that the ‘reason to live rightly’ is not merely an ethical ideal but is closely intertwined with individual self-interest. Maintaining community order allows each member to enjoy greater long-term benefits, and free-riding must be regulated because it threatens this order.
A life free of free-riding ultimately benefits the community, and this benefit returns to the individual. Therefore, various systems and measures to prevent free-riding should be actively utilized, and through this, we can realize a truly ‘right life’.