Rational choice theory is an economic theory explaining human decision-making. To simplify, it is a basic attempt to understand social, political and economic relations and institutions, built upon rationally self-interested agents who want to maximise their utility. Utility in this context is describing a degree to which the individual wants to peruse an end to satisfy his preferences. The theory has become the core of neoclassical economic, and is used in all social fields attempting to simplify and justify human action. The spread of the rational choice theory has raised a number of critics. In this essay I will discuss the debate in which rational theorist and their critics have created, first by pointing out the key points of the debate; second the ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions of both sides of the debate, and finally conclude by deciding on which side is more persuasive on the basis of their argument and giving an alternative.
The positivist and interpretivist division can summarize the rational choice theory debate. The main key points of the debate between rational choice theorists and their critics comes from the nature of the approach of studying social phenomena. A rational choice theorist wants to build modules to simplify the social and make it scientific, following the scientific method of conducting research. On the other hand the critics, who are mainly researchers on the interpretivist side, argues that the social cannot be simplified by a major theory, human action and political phenomena are more complex than being explained by a major theory (Marsh and Stocker, 2010). On such basis the debate also includes ontological epistemological and methodological differences between the two...
... middle of paper ...
... is downgraded from a theory it can be used to build modules for all aspects of the social (Hay, 2004).
Suggestion:
My suggestion after this debate is the need to have a framework that can undertake all other theories of analysing politics into it. And I believe rational choice, if used as a framework, has the capacity to do so. The reason rational choice ignores, ideas, emotions, gender, class and institutions, is the simple fact that they do not have a quantifying aspect. But if the researchers behind these ideas were able to make a quantifying aspect of it, rationalist can be able to add it to their models creating a better understanding of the political in a scientific way. Even though such an attempt would require breaking a taboo in the study of international relations where rivals will be working together but it should be attempted, further research required.
The rational decision theory is a method for thoroughly selecting among possible choices that are built on reasoning and facts. With a decision, making process one may employ a series of logical steps to overview relevant facts, observations, and potential outcomes before choosing a specific course of action.
Probably one of the biggest economic debates is rationality. Whether a decision is rational or irrational. If I were to make a rational decision, it would most benefit me over all of the other choices I could have chosen from. This is how Professor Henry Spearman solves the case of the murder. All of the suspects are proven guilty or innocent based off of the decisions they make. If it is a rational decision, then the suspect is thought of as innocent. If it is an irrational decision, then the suspect is thought of as
According to the text, Rational Choice Theory is comprised of two main thoughts, and they are, although people consider and are fully aware of the repercussion of the crimes they are about to commit, they proceed with the act, the second thought is that people will chose to commit a crime if they believe the benefit is greater. (Vito, 2007). In an article titled “Choosing White Color Crimes”, the rational choice theory has always been the acceptable method of interpreting and sustaining programs that help to combat crime (Shover, n.d.). Criminologists, Derek Cornish and Ronald Clark, clarify the two categories of the decision making process, the first one being criminal involvement, and the second one being criminal event.
Cook, K., Levi, M., O'Brien, J., & Faye, H. (2008). Introduction: The limits of rationality. In K. Cook & M. Levi (Eds.), The Limits of Rationality (pp. 02-47). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7M82yReFf4sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=social exchange and rational choice theory definition
In dissecting the two debates, I have found that applying the theories helps identify the values involved. The application also illuminates the complexity of the issues. Utilization of the theories is not nearly enough to come to a conclusion on either debate. Most of the work in finding an answer to these questions lies in carefully examining every minute detail in each issue, postulating, and mentally following the cause and effects of various conditions. The theories merely give one the tools to make this easier.
Each day, billions of people throughout the world affirm their commitment to a specific idea; to be part of a society. While this social contract is often overlooked by most citizens, their agreement to it nevertheless has far-reaching consequences. Being a member of society entails relinquishing self-autonomy to a higher authority, whose aim should be to promote the overall good of the populace. While making this decision to become part of a commonwealth is usually performed without explicit deliberation, there is a common consensus amongst philosophers that something unique to the human experience is the driving force behind this decision. Contained within this something are highly contested points of debate amongst both past and contemporary political philosophers. Two such philosophers are Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas. Each of these political writers provide detailed arguments regarding the concept of natural law, the role that reason plays in this law, whether some laws are considered truly rational, and why some people choose not to follow certain principles even when they recognize them to be rational. By analyzing each of these arguments, we will arrive at the conclusion that even though the rational principles that reason provides us can easily be disregarded by the populace, that we can still find a common good within promulgating rational doctrine.
Mark Overvold (1980) argues that preferentist theories of value have trouble accommodating the view that agents can deliberately choose to perform actions that can be described as self-sacrifice. This essay will examine Overvold's article, and explain the problems that preferentism has with the idea of self-sacrifice.
“The value of the next best alternative foregone as the result of making a decision”(Brue, 2005)
Rational choice theory, developed by Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish in 1985, is a revival of Cesare Becca...
What is Rational Choice? Rational choice theory is when violating behavior occurs when the offender commits crimes as a personal factor or situational factor. A personal factor is someone getting revenge on someone or just to steal money. A situational factor is where it targets the victim’s vulnerability. For a
The second example of when this case study involves the rational choice perspective is when Danny lied to Laura about having the job at GM. Danny used his rational thinking that if he told Laura he had a good job, that she would stay with Danny. Danny was desperate at this point and attempted to make Laura and the children stay. In his mind, he had to lie in order to gain his reward. He believed that the benefit of him saying he had a job would make his marriage
Rational choice theory/rational action theory, is a structure used by sociologist and criminologist to enumerate crime and often formally modeling socio-economic behavior.
Rational choice theory directly evolved from classical theory which is a theory of crime suggesting that criminal behavior is a matter of personal choice, made after the individual considers its cost and benefits, and that the criminal behavior reflects the needs of the offender. It focuses on internal and external factor- poverty, IQ Education, rather than personal choice and decision-making.
Evidence of this position is premised on pragmatic reasoning of abiding by societal rules and regulations irrespective of the moral contradictions of others. The interpretation of life choices cannot prevent people from making judgment and perception about those same choices. Additionally, the proponents of common sense insist that cognition is the center of all human actions and not intuition. This contributes to a refined reasoning process, which strives for the unification of the collective good that is utilitarian in its philosophical framework. Accordingly, the possible outcomes of making assumptions under the pretext of moral choices contentiously conflicts with the complex decisions expected of logical determination of phenomena in difficult situations. It is a step steeped in beliefs and attitudes of either the individual or the collective group that aspires for universal good. On the same account, objections raised consider Stuart Mill’s utilitarian concept as the guiding and founding principle of upholding self-sacrifice and setting of standards because it is rational. Mill observes, “our moral faculty, according to all those of its friends who are entitled to count as thinkers, supplies us only with the general principles of moral judgments; it belongs with reason and not with sense-perception (Mill
Rational choice theory in Criminal Justice focuses on deterrence and how individuals are influenced by some type of factor that makes them engage in crime. This adds to conversation that criminologists started in the 1700’s because they were all about deterring criminals. They wanted the crime to fit the punishment which would deter other criminals from committing that same crime. Rational Choice Theory and Classical criminologists also believed that people committed crimes because they wanted to achieve their desired goals whether it would be for money or their sexual desires. This was based off of free will where people decided if they were going to commit a crime and what the consequences would be if they committed that crime.