Some Information about Rational Expectations Theory

During the period of the Revolution, many rationalist rose to prominence and importance in a quest for a new type of government that would break away from the chains of tyranny. Although not as well known as other Rationalist writers / speakers such as Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine is the most persuasive Rationalist writer / speaker as he appeals to the common man, his use of emotional passages to prove a factual point, and his reliance on imagery that evokes strong emotion .

Benjamin Franklin’s Rational Thinking Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel once said, “to him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect. The relation is mutual” (Hegel). The ideals of rationalism are still affecting todays lifestyle. People are still trying to reach moral perfection, and are still trying to use rationalism to help them figure out what is correct, and what is wrong.

With this perspective, people are considered rational thinkers, and when a person commits a crime, the person is making a rational choice to engage in criminal behavior. If a person steals a purse, they have chosen to do so because of rational thought. The person could be envious, stealing a purse just for fun, or many other reasons. The real issue is that the person rationally decides to take the purse under the wrongful thinking that it will bring them some benefit, and this benefit is important to their own purposes. Crime occurs because people rationally weigh whether they will obtain a reward for committing a criminal act instead of being punished for the criminal act. It is ultimately decided by which one has the strongest pull on the individual.

My example of the rational choice theory of today is the mexican drug controls of December 2011. The drug trafficking organization in Mexico was highly rational, self-interested actors seeked to maximize profit.

Rational choice theory is a criminology theory designed by Derek Cornish and Ronald Clark which states that before people commit a crime they think about what they are going to do (Snook, Dhami, & Kavanagh, 2011). They consider the pros and cons before performing the criminal action. The entire premise of the rational choice theory is that each individual, regardless of whether rich, poor, educated, or uneducated, all utilize rationality when making the decision to commit a crime (Taylor, 2013). The rational choice theory postulates that when a person weighs the costs and benefits of a crime, that person decides whether or not the benefits are worth the risk. It is about maximizing his or her own self-interest (Jacques & Wright, 2010). The

Rational choice theory was first discovered in the mid-eighteenth century and was originally referred to as classical theory. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham and scholar César Beccaria, were some of the first to analyze and investigate this theory. In order to determine whether or not a dichotomous relationship exists between an individual’s free will and their decision to commit a crime. One must first consider whether that individual has control over making a rational decision. During this time offenders were considered to be rational, therefore the punishment received for the crime committed, must significantly

Manuel answer with a yes that he was under a rational mind. According to the book, Crime and Behavior by the editors Sylvia Valenzuela, Paul Kaplan, and Stuart Henry states in the first chapter the rational choice perspective, it is “the assumption that offenders choose crime because of the benefits it brings them…the rewards of crime can also include excitement, fun, prestige, sexual gratification, and the defiance or domination of others” (p. 15-16). From my observations Manuel acted with a rational mind he knew the pros and cons of his actions. For example, Manuel knew that if he smuggled drugs illegally to the United States he will be caught and sent to prison or he could get a huge reward economically. Manuel knew that be around people who were a bad influence he could be manipulated and be menaced with death. But, Manuel decided any way to accept the criminal acts he committed. So, Manuel enforces the idea that he acted with a rational mind, he decided to plead guilty and suffer the consequences, which was to be sentenced to prison, but he knew that by pleading guilty he will get out from the drug traffickers He wanted to go to jail because if not in the future he could be killed or be even more manipulated by his bad influences to commit harsher

So what is the definition of a rational theory? “The rational choice theory adopts a utilitarian belief that man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice. This method was designed by Cornish and Clarke to assist in thinking about situational crime prevention”. In the book it basically explains it in a much easier way. The book defines it as the, “explanations of crime and delinquency held that human behavior was a matter of choice”.

Rationale gives substantial thinking and assurance in judgment, however, it is subordinate to common sense needs. The principal and most important piece of logic concerns the application of principle. Epictectus argues that the ills that human beings experience are as a result of mistaken beliefs of what is surely worthy. According to him, as human beings, We have put our trust in the wrong things, or possibly put it in the wrong way.

However, the philosophes of the Enlightenment believed in rational thinking. Enlightened thinkers believed truth could be discovered through reason and logic. These opinions would evidently show that the philosophes did not believe in emotional driven decisions, but rather in logical thinking. John Locke, for example, strongly believed that all humans are rational individuals, as well as Renè Descartes, who also believed that problems

Schmitt, oddly, holds on to the ideas he has about rationality. He talks about why the idea of the political is grounded on the distinction friend-enemy. The friend and enemy difference does not essentially rest on those of other scopes of existence. Consequently, the enemy does not have to be wicked, horrid, or unreasonable. “Rationally speaking, it cannot be denied that nations continue to group themselves according to the friend and enemy antithesis, that the distinction still remains actual today, and that this is an ever present possibility for every people existing in the political sphere.” (28) What he is clearly trying to say is rationality is essential for him to make progress in his belief.

At some point in history, it is highly probable that a wise man or woman once made the assertion that irrational decisions lead to irrational outcomes and in that statement, it would set in place a pivotal exemplary for decision making in today’s society. However, Leon Kass, an American physician, scientist, and educator, takes the stance combating the ideology of rational decision making in his article, entitled, “The Wisdom of Repugnance. by upholding his argument that Repugnance holds validity when making effective decisions of policy and lawmaking. In dissent, Although Kass makes the argument that Repugnance is an applicable model to construct social mores and laws I strongly believe that argumentation (which is not present in the idea

Rational behavior is the point of decision making. What happens in that moment when individuals make a striking decision? How are they going to react emotionally? This affects the Criminal Justice system to be just and fair regarding their decision making based on rational behavior. Page 5 focus two different rational behavior that has the effect of society mores and folkways. Page 5 of the book gave the definition of mores, mores are behaviors that arouse intense feelings and are subject to extreme consequences. Mores are constructed on individual’s behaviors, appearances, and values in society. Mores reflect right and wrong in society. These are choices individuals make in life. When people experience adversary in their life that's when

However, this idea can be a divergence from reality, as in real life it is difficult or even impossible to find such agents that will make perfectly rational decision as reflected by irrational human behaviour. Though the assumption of individuals act rationally is important when analysing economics and interactions. This is because if we don’t assume everyone act rationally, if there’s a loss of welfare, we will not be able to decide whether it is the result of flaw in the structure or just because of irrationality.

First I will provide an overview of what rational choice theory is and why it has staked such a prominent position in the discipline of political science. In this section I conclude that rational choice theory has indeed developed advanced methodologies at telling us how rational agents should behave. Then in my second section I will show, using the empirical case of the free-rider problem and collective action, as well as the case of suicide terrorism, that rational choice theory cannot adequately account for actual political phenomena. In my third section I will provide some reasons for why this is the case. Finally, in my concluding section I will posit a theoretical framework incorporating some refinements to the assumptions behind rational choice theory that would better aid a predictive (but not universalist) political science.