Rationality

Full Title or Meme

As a basis for any decision process Rationality has been assumed to be essential. Unfortunately, rationality can be extrinsic, based on external knowledge obtained inductively from the exiting ecosystems, or intrinsic, based on a person's internal value system. The mixture of these two modes of thought in one person make rational decisions dependent on circumstances and not deterministic.

Context

BACK TO THE PRE-SOCRATICS By KARL R. POPPER

BACK TO METHUSELAH was a progressive program, compared with Back to Thales what Shaw offered us was an improved expectation of life—something that was in the air, at any rate when he wrote. I have nothing to offer you, I am afraid, that is in the air to-day; for what I want to return to is the simple straightforward rationality of the Pre-Socratics. The simplicity and boldness of their questions is part of it, but more important still is the critical attitude which, as I shall try to show, was first developed in the Ionian School.

The questions which the Pre-Socratics tried to answer were primarily cosmological questions, but they also dealt with questions of the theory of knowledge. It is my belief that philosophy must return to cosmology and to a simple theory of knowledge. There is at least one philosophical problem in which all thinking men are interested: the problem of understanding the world in which we live, including ourselves, who are part of that world, and our knowledge of it. All science is cosmology, I believe, and for me the interest of philosophy as well as of science lies solely in their bold attempt to add to our knowledge of the world, and to the theory of our knowledge of the world. I am interested in Wittgenstein, for example, not because of his linguistic philosophy, but because his Tractatus was a cosmological treatise, and because his theory of knowledge was closely linked with his cosmology. For me, philosophy as well as science lose all attraction when they give up that pursuit—when they become specialists.

Governance

When the consent of the public for approval of any course of action, it is assumed that most members of the public are capable of making a rational choice. Modern legal and other governance systems assume that there is some Utility Function that can be used to inform a decision process. While the idea that individuals can make entirely rational decisions about their own futures is rooted in historical and philosophical traditions, it remains a subject of significant debate.

Roots in Enlightenment Thought and Liberal Philosophy

Autonomy and Free Will: Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill championed the idea that individuals possess inherent reason and autonomy. They believed that, when free from coercion, people can deliberate and choose paths that best serve their interests and values. This view underlies much of our modern democratic and capitalist systems, which assume that each person is the best judge of their own needs.

Rational Choice Theory: In economics and political science, rational choice theory posits that individuals act as “homo economicus” – making decisions by logically weighing costs and benefits to maximize utility. Even if an approximation, this model supports policies and systems where decision-making is seen as a personal responsibility conducted through rational deliberation.

Assumptions and Idealization

A Starting Point for Policy: Many legal and political frameworks, such as the idea of personal liberty and consent, presume that every adult has the capacity to make informed decisions about their lives. This assumption is less about empirically verifying that everyone is perfectly rational and more about affirming the value of individual freedom and responsibility.

Normative, Not Descriptive: The belief that “all men can make rational decisions on their own future” serves as an ideal—one that inspires efforts toward education, transparency, and empowerment. It sets a benchmark for what a functioning, free society should strive for, even if actual human behavior often deviates from pure rationality.

Crime and Punishment

We have fashioned our criminal-justice system around the assumption that people commit violent crimes rationally and purposefully, and are aware of the consequences. But, much more often, a violent act is the result of a sudden burst of frustration or anger.

Critiques and Real-World Complexities

Bounded Rationality: Research by Herbert Simon, Daniel Kahneman, and others shows that human decision-making is often limited by cognitive biases, emotional influences, incomplete information, and the constraints of time and processing capacity. This concept of bounded rationality suggests that while people aim to be rational, their choices are frequently influenced by factors that lead to suboptimal or irrational outcomes.

Social and Environmental Influences: Decisions about one’s future aren’t made in a vacuum. They’re affected by socioeconomic factors, cultural norms, access to resources, and even systemic inequalities. Critics argue that assuming complete rationality overlooks the powerful external forces that can shape or limit an individual's choices, regardless of their intellectual capabilities.

Implications for Policy and Paternalism: If we overestimate individuals’ capacities for rational decision-making, it might justify policies that overly rely on personal responsibility without providing adequate support or safeguards. This can lead to situations where vulnerable individuals are expected to navigate complex challenges without sufficient help—fueling debates over paternalism versus autonomy in public policy.

While the notion that all individuals can make perfectly rational decisions about their futures has deep philosophical and political roots, it is more of an aspirational principle than a reflection of actual human behavior. Enlightenment legacies and rational choice theory provide a compelling rationale for individual autonomy, yet findings in behavioral science remind us that decision-making is inherently complex and often flawed. Recognizing these limitations is crucial, as it calls for systems and policies that support and correct for human biases rather than relying solely on idealized individual rationality.