The reason why people should live altruistically and rightly rather than selfishly is a survival strategy that stems from group interactions. Selfish behaviors, such as free-riding, may bring short-term benefits, but in the long run, they are detrimental to both the individual and the group. According to the group selection hypothesis, groups dominated by altruistic behavior are more likely to survive and adapt better to change and crises.
We’ve all heard it since childhood: “Honey, you should be a good person!” Most of us have developed a subconscious belief that we should be good, without questioning why we should be good. So why do we need to be right? Let’s explore what rightness is and why it’s important to live rightly.
First, there are many kinds of wrong behavior. From acts prohibited by law, such as murder and robbery, to failing to yield the right of way to someone in traffic, to cutting in front of someone waiting for you, we usually see these behaviors as wrong. One of the most common “wrong” behaviors, especially in college, is free-riding on group assignments: doing nothing and reaping the consequences. So, what causes free riding?
There are many reasons for free riding, but here are three main ones First, you’re given a task to do and you don’t do it, so someone else takes over (lack of commitment). Second, the division of roles in a collaborative task isn’t clear and you just bury it. Finally, a sudden health issue or unavoidable circumstances prevent you from fulfilling your responsibilities (lack of ability).
The best way to prevent free-riding is active cooperation, where each person voluntarily finds and fulfills a task, but this is nearly impossible in practice. Therefore, introducing institutional mechanisms to enforce it increases the likelihood that people will do what they are supposed to do. While this has the positive effect of deterring deviations, it also has the risk of reducing the efficiency of work or the quality of output, as it can cause stress from oppression and a sense of reluctance to do what they don’t want to do. Therefore, you need to find ways to minimize these negative effects and motivate people to do what they want to do voluntarily. It’s like dealing with a horse, giving it a whip when it misbehaves and a carrot when it performs well.
The “carrot and stick” approach can be used to motivate team members to fulfill their assigned roles while also enforcing accountability, preventing free-riding and improving efficiency and quality of work. For example, if a person hasn’t met their quota, has been dishonest, or has done something that negatively impacts the group’s activities, they’ll get a “stack”. Depending on the number of stacks, the person is penalized at different levels according to predetermined rules. However, the penalties should be designed to positively impact the team, rather than punish the individual. For example, a stack of one might have the team bring snacks to the next meeting, a stack of two might buy coffee, a stack of three might buy a post-meeting meal, and so on. Stacking reduces free rides, and if you do end up taking a free ride for personal reasons, you’ll pay for it in proportion to your stack, making you more aware and accountable to be more careful in the future. Team members can also receive material and mental rewards, such as tasty treats, when someone’s stack builds up and they pay the price, which can motivate them to fulfill their quota. This combination of coercion and motivation can be used to improve the efficiency of work and the quality of output.
But why should humans live right and not engage in selfish behavior like free riding? In the book The Emergence of Altruism, a theory called the group selection hypothesis is introduced. This theory extends traditional natural selection from the individual to the group level. Especially for a species like humans, where interactions within and between groups are important, the group selection hypothesis is useful in explaining why we should live right.
To make it easier to understand, imagine a world where everyone is programmed from birth to behave altruistically. In an altruistic world, people help, care, and make concessions to one another. But let’s say that one day there’s a selfish person, A, who has no altruism whatsoever. A takes advantage of the altruism of those around him to further his own interests and does nothing good for others. Two things can happen here. The first is that altruistic people remain altruistic to the end, and the second is that they learn selfish behavior and gradually become selfish. In the first scenario, A’s selfishness destroys the people around him, so he eventually moves on to another group and slowly destroys that group. In the second assumption, even altruistic people gradually become selfish, pursuing only their own interests, and the world is filled with selfish people. Selfish behavior may be beneficial in the short term, but it will lead to self-destruction later on, when there is no one to turn to for help in difficult situations. This situation leads to social decline, not progress.
According to the theory of group selection, the higher the percentage of individuals who exhibit altruistic behavior, the more likely it is that the group will be able to withstand environmental changes or trials and eventually become the last group to survive natural selection. This means that even if selfish individuals are present, groups that persist in altruistic behavior are more likely to survive than those that don’t. Therefore, even if selfish people are around, living altruistically (i.e., doing the right thing) will increase the chances of survival for your group and for humanity as a whole. In the end, we need to live right if we want to survive as a species.
