In this blog post, we explore why we should live altruistically and rightly, even at a cost, through the lens of group selection theory and the survival logic of human society.
From childhood, we’ve often heard adults say, “Child, you must live a good life!” Without questioning why we should live well—that is, rightly—most of us have developed an unconscious belief that we must live rightly. So why must we live rightly? Let’s explore what righteousness is and why we must live rightly.
First, there are many kinds of wrong actions. From acts prohibited by law, like murder or robbery, to refusing to give up your seat for someone with limited mobility, or cutting in line when others are waiting—we generally view these as wrong. One particularly common “wrong” behavior encountered in college life is free-riding in group assignments. This refers to the act of taking credit for results without contributing any effort. So, what causes free-riding?
While there are various causes, three primary reasons are as follows. First, when someone assigned a task fails to do it, forcing others to cover for them (lack of willpower). Second, when roles aren’t clearly defined in a group project, leading to passive participation. Finally, sudden health issues or unavoidable circumstances preventing someone from completing their assigned work (lack of ability).
The best way to prevent free-riding is active cooperation, where each member voluntarily identifies and completes their tasks. However, this is practically nearly impossible. Therefore, introducing institutional mechanisms to enforce accountability increases the likelihood that members will fulfill their responsibilities. While such mandatory systems have the positive effect of curbing member deviation, they simultaneously risk causing stress from oppression and resistance to performing unwanted tasks, potentially lowering work efficiency or the quality of deliverables. Consequently, a method is needed to minimize these negative impacts and motivate members to perform their duties voluntarily. Much like handling a horse—using a whip when it misbehaves and a carrot when it performs well.
The ‘carrot and stick’ approach can simultaneously impose discipline on team members while motivating them to fulfill their assigned roles. This strategy aims to prevent free-riding while improving work efficiency and the quality of deliverables. For instance, if someone fails to meet their assigned quota, performs their duties negligently, or engages in behavior that negatively impacts group activities, they receive one ‘stack’. The number of accumulated stacks then triggers predetermined penalties of varying severity. Crucially, these penalties should not be personal punishments but rather actions designed to positively influence the team. For example, with one stack, the individual must bring snacks for the entire team to the next meeting; with two stacks, they must bring coffee; and with three stacks, they must buy dinner after the meeting. Using this stack system reduces free-riding. Even if someone free-rides due to personal circumstances, they pay a price proportional to the accumulated stacks, instilling caution and a sense of responsibility to be more careful in the future. Furthermore, when someone accumulates stacks and pays the price, team members ultimately receive material and psychological rewards, such as getting to enjoy tasty treats. This can motivate each member to fulfill their assigned tasks. By simultaneously applying compulsion and motivation, this system aims to improve work efficiency and the quality of deliverables.
So why should humans live rightly rather than engage in selfish behaviors like free-riding? The book The Emergence of Altruistic Humans introduces the theory of group selection. This theory expands the perspective of natural selection from the individual level to the group level. It is particularly useful for explaining why species like humans, where interactions within and outside the group are crucial, should live rightly.
To understand this easily, imagine a world where everyone is programmed from birth to act altruistically. In this altruistic world, people help, care for, and yield to one another. But suppose one day, a completely selfish person A appears, devoid of any altruism. A exploits the altruism of those around them, pursuing only their own interests and never performing any good deeds for others. Here, two scenarios can be considered. First, the assumption that altruistic people remain altruistic to the end. Second, the assumption that they learn selfish behavior and gradually become selfish themselves. Under the first assumption, A causes those around them to become exhausted, eventually forcing A to move to another group, which A then slowly destroys. Under the second assumption, even the altruistic people gradually become selfish, each pursuing only their own interests, and ultimately the world becomes filled with selfish people. While selfish behavior may yield immediate gains, it ultimately leads to self-destruction when individuals find themselves in dire straits with no one to turn to for help. Such a situation inevitably leads not to social progress, but to decline.
According to group selection theory, the higher the proportion of individuals exhibiting altruistic behavior within a group, the greater its likelihood of withstanding environmental changes or trials. Consequently, such a group is more likely to survive natural selection until the end. Even if selfish individuals exist, groups that persist in altruistic behavior are more likely to survive than those that do not. Therefore, even if selfish people surround you, living altruistically—that is, rightly—increases the probability of survival not only for your own group but for humanity as a whole. Ultimately, for the very survival of humanity, we must live rightly.
