We are taught to live right from elementary school through moral and ethical education, but why should we live right? We use the iteration-reciprocity hypothesis to prevent free-riding in group work and discuss the long-term benefits of altruistic behavior for individuals and society as a whole.
From elementary school through high school, we are taught to live right, or to think about living right, through “right living” and “morality” and “ethics and ideas” and “life and ethics”. But is there a reason for people to live right? Before we discuss this, we need to define right living. The word ‘right’ is described in the dictionary as an adjective that means ‘right or proper in speech, thought, or behavior, without deviation from reason or norms. So what does it mean to live right? According to the dictionary definition of “right” mentioned earlier, it would be a life that is free from deviations from reason and norms. In the modern world, where the cultural diversity of individuals is emphasized, the discussion of absolute rightness is left out of the equation, but in general, laws and regulations are set along the lines of passive altruism, at least not harming others, and moral norms are set along the lines of active altruism.
However, it’s important to understand that altruistic behavior is not just about following moral codes. Human behavior and choices are made in a complex social context, and it is within this context that we can often achieve greater good through altruistic behavior. This contributes to building social trust, fostering cooperative relationships, and strengthening long-term social stability. This is why living rightly benefits both the individual and society.
To expand the discussion in terms of moral norms, let’s look at the “right life” as one of active altruistic behavior. We will now discuss the question, “Is there a reason for people to live rightly?” by proposing how the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis, which explains altruistic behavior, can be used to prevent free-riding in groups to ensure the best group activity. First, the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis is a hypothesis that explains that people will engage in altruistic behavior when the transactions or relationships between people are repeated and long-lasting, and the behavior of the actor depends on the behavior of the other party. For example, in a series of interactions between A and B, A is more likely to cooperate because he fears that B will retaliate next time, where retaliation means that if A fails to cooperate, B will also fail to cooperate next time.
Using the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis, here are my suggestions for the best way to organize group activities
Distribute the group work appropriately and hold several short-term group meetings.
During each group meeting, students report on their performance, document it, and peer-assess each other.
The instructor refers to the results of performance reports and mutual evaluations in the final grade of each individual, and reflects a high percentage of mutual evaluation scores.
In this way, performing group work as a member of a group can be considered an altruistic act because it is not only for your own benefit (credit), but also for the common good (credit) by using your time that could be used for other subjects or studying. In addition, the repeated group meetings to check the performance of the assignment (cooperation) can be considered as a repeatability of the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis. Furthermore, the retaliation was not just about not doing the group work, but also about introducing a peer assessment that contributed a high percentage to each individual’s final grade. In a group with an exceptional student who doesn’t care about grades, the group’s work may be less complete, but the instructor considers and grades the results of the performance report to provide equity, and it’s hardly a free ride because the exceptional student will receive a lower grade for low participation. Therefore, the above methods should minimize free riding in groups.
Using the best grouping method and the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis, we can see that there is a greater payoff for altruistic behavior. While it is possible to benefit from simply free-riding, this is a short-term self-interest, and it increases the likelihood of retaliatory free-riding by other members of the group, reducing the group’s overall benefit. This suggests that altruistic behavior can lead to greater long-term self-interest along with the benefit of others.
Let’s extend the previous discussion to human society rather than group activities. Humans have formed and lived in societies, and even in individualized societies, and even in societies where money is all you need to live, the act of making money involves human relationships, which are mostly repetitive, so the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis suggests that acting altruistically can lead to greater gains. For example, in business, relationships based on trust create greater opportunities for deals and cooperation, and trust between individuals creates social capital, which increases the efficiency and stability of society as a whole. Thus, living rightly is more beneficial in the long run than not, not only for individuals but for society as a whole.
Along with the definition of the right life, we propose a way to achieve the best group behavior without free-riding through the “repetition-reciprocity” hypothesis, which confirms that altruistic behavior leads to long-term benefits for the group as a whole. In this group behavior, we extend the discussion to modern human society, which includes repetitive relationships, and confirm that the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis shows that living the right life is beneficial in the long run compared to not living the right life. Therefore, we can conclude that there are reasons to live right.
