This text follows this insight and tries to distinguish between the contents of the concept of rationality so that it encompasses the essential concept of rationality in economics. Nevertheless, it is believed to be unaffected by Simon's critique of the concept of human rationality. Lagueux pointed to a different meaning of rationality in classical and neoclassical economics.2 Denis and Laville showed how rhetorical tactics are used to avoid criticism of the implausible elements of theories associated with strong assumptions about rationality.3 This text aims to to participate in this discussion and also examine the rhetoric on the notion of rationality.
2 Maurice LAGUEUX, "The forgotten role of the rationality principle in economics." Journal of Economic Methodology, vol. It is the viewer's perspective, not a description of an individual character being watched. 11 Herbert SIMON, “Theories of Decision Making in Economics and Behavioral Sciences.” The American Economic Review, vol.
13 Viktor VANBERG, "The postulate of rationality in economics: its ambiguity, deficiency and its evolutionary alternative." Journal of Economic Methodology, vol.
Prime and exclusive problems and the problem of action
However, in order to clarify the concept in relation to this document, we must say in what context this situation takes place and what is the attitude of the actors towards it. I have already outlined two types of problems related to the two aforementioned assumptions of rationality, but now I want to make them concrete and examine the issue in more detail. Its privileged position entitles it to the label of the most important reality.17 If we summarize the content of the quotations, among the many realities related to our existence, there is the reality of everyday life, which differs from others in its special meaning and characteristics. .
Unlike everyday reality, the problems of the remaining realities are always to some extent exclusive, and their connection to the problems of everyday life is, if any, only indirect. To distinguish between the problems of everyday reality and the problems of residual realities, I will label the former main problems and the latter exclusive problems. When we talk about problems, we generally mean problems in our everyday life, and we can also find problems in other more or less exclusive realities, but these must be separated from the problem of the action itself.
These kinds of problems provide a schema that describes the position of the human individual as separate from the concrete contexts of the reality in which he acts. It is not as trivial to mention as it might seem, because it is not easy to be free of it environment we live in. When I play football, I react to the movements of other players, and these movements are meaningful to me as actions only through the framework of the game of football.
However, the meaning I understand is embedded in the main problem of a football match and does not reach to the action problem of the individual. I don't see the relationship between the main problem (football game) and the individual action problems. 19 This does not refer to the subjective perception of a primary problem, but to a concept that captures the general situation of an actor, i.e.
Problems and science
This concept conceives of action as an individual's problem and the complex situation in which he or she finds himself. We could also say that he does the worst and the meaning would not change. The choice is always between opinions, because it is always too late to choose between facts.”22 This statement succinctly expresses the difference between these two understandings of the problem of action.
The second also captures "facts" and therefore the outcome of this problem is necessarily unique, which also means that the problem is causal. Labeling both types as "action problems" would make sense; therefore we need to use an additional distinction. For this paper I will distinguish them as the teleological action problem (the former) and the complete action problem (the latter).
Although there may be many different conceptions of the problem of action, it is not possible to mix these two on logical grounds. The general outline of the argument is that the human individual is in a position of incomplete information which predisposes him to failure. A common example is the purchase of a drink of plain water in good faith of its healing powers.
To also consider the error brings us to the complete problem of action, because suddenly there is not only the goal, but also the circumstance that caused the degree of its fulfillment. There can be no saving because failure is the same as success. If we consider that there are two pieces of information, one about the healing quality of the potion and a second about the alternative prices for which the potion can be bought, then there can be savings on the price and fallibility on the quality (eg .the economic economists cooperate) as well as vice versa, economically about the quality and fallibility about the price.
Even if we were to divide the action into saving and non-saving parts, such a division must be arbitrary. Any change of the actor's decision will lead to the worsening of her well-being. If we assume that the action can be prescribed by someone else, then no one, not even a perfect being, can "perform".
Even if we see people fall behind the problems we may intuitively impose on them, it doesn't change the fact that they are doing the best they can for their own well-being. Even if we see them oppressed, hurt, or in error, this is only our perception of their position within the intersubjective world, not a testimony of their personal failure. If we could even keep the reins on their performance and increase their performance on the (primary) problem we gave the player, it could only mean making them feel worse because they are performing as well on the (primary) problem as they wanted.
For example, economics inquires about a firm's output and assumes that it will be determined in the most efficient way among the viable possibilities. However, the nature and behavior of the actors varies under this assumption of rationality as the (primary) problem under consideration changes. If we relate this concept to the problem of murder, we arrive at a very different picture.
The choice of problem is a key factor, as assumptions about sufficient competence and motivation (rationality II) can lead to very different conclusions about both the actors and the social order. It is especially important if we realize that we only have access to the last two. 24 This is the main content of the works of Tversky and Kahneman and other psychologists who study behavior from the perspective of economics.
Rationality tactics
Mises’s Human Action
The use of the term "rational" mismatches rationalityI. However, Mises never formulates the definition of rationality explicitly in terms of rationalityI. In addition, he often talks about people who fail and fail. What integrates the actions of the individual into the whole of the social production system is the pursuit of his own ends. There is no antagonism between the interests of the individual and those of society.31.
In order to succeed in the task of building on the logic of action, the analysis must not leave the domain of the action problem, because otherwise the footing (axiom) for the logic is lost. We can abstractly classify alternative means with respect to an individual end, but without knowledge of the individual ends we have nothing to fill in. The world of the action problem and the everyday intersubjective world simply have no channels to transfer one to the other.
To show how easy it is to depart from the stated subjective domain of the problem of action, let us focus on statement A. Such an understanding would impose a rationality assumption II, but would not be related to the logic of individual action. The only implication of this statement, given that we hold the domain of subjectivity, is the protection of the status quo.
We do not know what state is for the subjective perception of an individual, and we do not know the state's relationship to him. The abolition of the state could possibly be coercion in the same way that it could be liberation. The second understanding may very well be the starting point for a theory that leads to a description of the social order around us, as we might imagine it without conflict between the interests of the individual and society, but it is not within the domain of subjectivity and the logic of action.
Statements describing the operation of the economic system are implied neither by the introductory axiom of human action nor by rationality. His assumptions of rationality II are focused on the operation of the free market, which in the Austrian view is the preservation of efficiency.
Conclusion
